Carlos Afonso

Introductory Note

I felt the questionnaire to be a bit redundant sometimes, and in particular some crucial issues could not be properly dealt with in relation to a new governance structure, like:

- Which precise legal and organic form of organization?
- How is participation of all stakeholders carried out?
- What are the decision-making processes and authoritative delegations?
- With which golden rules / protective clauses?
- Under which Statement of Principles?

My responses are based on the proposal I have recently circulated (in a new version available in the WGIG colaborative work intranet), and which should be read beforehand (sorry!).

--c.a.

Internet Governance Mechanisms: Questionnaire [response follows]

Process/Function 1: "Forum function"

1.Is there need for an additional body?

Yes, along with a restructuring of the existing IG institutions, in a formation and implementation process which does not put at risk the stable and secure operation of the Internet.

2. What functions should it exercise?

(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum ("without teeth")?

Fine to create a space for open discussion, but the organization itself is truly global and multistakeholder in ints decision-making process.

(b) Give policy direction?

Its role will vary with the scope of issues – authority/normative, authoritative, advisory, facilitating, and essentially it will perform an overall coordination function.

(c)Any other function?

As above.

(d) Be a combination of the above?

As above.

3. What kind of public policy issues should it address?

(a) All issues related to the Internet?

All Internet-related issues are to be considered.

(b) Only issues outside the scope of existing organizations and institutions?

Since it will perform a coordinating function, all issues are of its concern.

4. Where should it be anchored?

Not anchored anywhere (here taken as not formally or legally dependent on any other international body) , but should have a formalized relationship with the UN. Another hypothesis is that it could become a new form of multistakeholder specialized, autonomous agency of the UN – something not yet in existence among the 16 specialized agencies of the UN system, so this may not be a possibility.

5. How should it be financed?

As I said in my recent proposal, "the obvious counterpart to taking over more responsibility in governance is to be accountable for the self-sufficiency of the governance system." Thus, governments, as they move to share oversight role with other stakeholders in this organization, ought to accept their responsibility in apportioning costs of the governance structure. We should remind ourselves that there is also a funding structure for the ICANN system based on commercial registries' contributions, and which should also be considered.

6. How should it be structured?

In my proposal:

"The new ICANN, new ccNSO and new NRO will jointly form an International Internet Coordination and Evaluation Council (IICEC), with representation of the corresponding councils and executive management structures. The IICEC will also be the instance where governments will be represented – ICANN's current Government Advisory Committee (GAC), will cease to exist, and government representation will be moved up to the oversight instance of the governance structure. However, this representation will be construed in such way as to guarantee equal representation from all stakeholders, since governments will coexist on an equal decision-making basis with councillors appointed by the new ICANN, ccNSO, and NRO. A rotating form of regional and stakeholder representation could be devised to make sure total numbers of representatives of any sector are not too large. Two alternatives for UN involvement in the IICEC are envisioned: 1.The UN participates directly by a representation of the General Secretariat, and by representation of a number of "tier-1" organizations and specialized agencies of the UN system, obviously including at least the ITU, UNDP, and UNESCO. 2.The UN has 16 specialized agencies, like WIPO, WTO, and so on, in which transparency and ample participation has not been part of their features. Could IICEC become a new form of a specialized agency in which multistakeholder participation is ensured?"

Since I do not trust a specialized agency of the UN could be really autonomous and multistakeholder, I stick to the first alternative.

7. What would be its relationship with existing organizations and institutions?

Very close, structured, with full participation in its Board from representatives of each of the existing, reformulated or newly created governance institutions.

=====================================================

Process/Function 2: "Oversight function"

1. When talking about oversight, what functions do you envisage (simple audit function, arbitration, policy direction or any other function)?

It depends on the issue and attributions already defined for the other institutions of the governance system.

2. Should there be governmental oversight over the administration of the DNS and root server system?

In my proposal I detail a form of joint management of the root by what I call "the new ICANN and the new ccNSO", with oversight from the overall coordinating body.

3. Is there a need for governmental oversight over ICANN after termination of the MoU with the USG in 2006?

Ideally the new body would have been already structured to take over oversight/coordination/advisory responsibilities by then. We know that this transition will be carefully done, given the huge interests at stake, so the end of 2006 will not be a tsunami over governance, or so I hope...

4. Oversight over what areas of activity?

(a) Over (all of) those areas hitherto under the oversight of the USG?

See below.

(b) Over all areas of activity?

The roles of this new organism will vary depending on the issues at stake and on the attributions of the participating institutions of the governance system.

5. Should the GAC be transformed and take on some oversight functions?

With the creation of this new global multistakeholder organism, the GAC becomes history, since governments will be brought up to participate in the global coordination function.

6. Should the GAC be replaced by another body?

It would become extinct.

7. Should a governmental oversight body keep an advisory role over some of ICANN's activities?

The new organism is supposed to do this, with participation of the "new ICANN" representatives in its Board.

8. Should any post 2006 governmental oversight be exercised within the UN framework?

No. The new governance structure will not be subordinated or dependent of any existing organization or government, UN or otherwise.

=====================================================

Process/Function 3: Functioning / coordination of existing institutions

1. What improvements in their functioning should existing institutions make to bring them more in line with the WSIS principles?

Become truly global and multistakeholder. In particular, ICANN, ccNSO, and NRO should become equals in sharing responsibility over components of what today is formally under ICANN, and all three should be truly global and multistakeholder, as described in my paper.

2. How can their activities be better coordinated?

This is precisely one of the main reasons to create a new multistakeholder organism.

3. Are there existing models of inter-agency cooperation that could be followed?

None in particular, but some could be learned (regarding what was useful and what wasn't) from the WGIG and the UN ICT TF experiences.

4. Should any existing institution be given the role of lead agency?

No. In light of the above responses, this question becomes redundant.

=====================================================

Process Function 4: Functioning / coordination at the national level

1. How should Governments bring their national decision-making process in line with international Internet governance arrangements?

They should strive to fully participate in the new organism, and base Internet governance policies within their borders on the same principles guiding the new worldwide Internet governance system.

2. What successful multi-stakeholder models could be recommended as an approach to be followed?

Already described.