The WGIG has posted a summary of the replies it got in its questionnaire

The first question was if there a need for an additional body. Actually, there might be a need for two bodies, one new and a reformed existing one. Internet Governance is a vast domain, ranging from IP address allocation issues to interconnection tariffs, freedom of expression, intellectual property issues, cybercrime… Only a small part of the above is currently managed by ICANN.

One of these bodies should address the oversight function by taking over the role of the DoC in relation with ICANN, and especially the control on the root zone. The majority of the TLDs in the root zone file are country codes, thus this is a matter of national sovereignty, which cannot be delegated neither to a specific government nor to the private sector, the latter lacking any legitimacy under international law.

My opinion is that a reformed GAC, or a sub-committee of it (let’s call it GOC, with an “o” for oversight), could address that part. Root server operations being 90% technical, the workload on the GOC would be rather limited. But since it would be multilateral, it would de facto be less challengeable.

I would like to stress the fact that, under such a model, ICANN would be left largely untouched, which should reassure the many who preach the “if it ain’t broken don’t fix it” attitude. Having cut its link with the DoC would actually give extra legitimacy to the ICANN process, as it will not appear to be flawed from the start.

The other body would address the other parts of IG in terms of discussion, coordination and facilitation. This body should be
lightweight and rely on others existing institutions or fora to take the lead when discussing specific issues (WIPO on IP issues, IETF on standards issues, etc).

The funding of this group should be balanced between the public and the private sector. It needs to work for the common good and should be in a financial position that prevents it to be captured by one or another interest group.