Hi Carlos

Two thoughts in-line.

On 6/24/2015 10:20 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Hi people,
>
> Just heard China, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia at the GAC meeting 
> today (June 24). I have been trying to alert NCUC/NCSG that we should 
> think very seriously about the way the oversight structure may come to 
> be in the IANA transition. My concern is that we are losing a window 
> of opportunity to mnimize the strong pressure from a relevant group of 
> countries to change ICANN's jurisdiction.
>
> My view is that we should defend an oversight structure which is truly 
> independent from ICANN, truly international in nature (even if it is 
> constituted in the USA, although the ideal solution would be for it to 
> be established outside of the USA, recongnizing there may be 
> jurisdiction problems in this), and multistakeholder on equal footing.
When we started the work of the CWG the first model discussions resulted 
in independent contracting and oversight through Contract Co and the 
MRT, the external model.  We fought long and hard to keep those but 
others within and outside the WG fought hard for the internal model.  We 
have a compromise that provides some separation BUT, from my 
perspective, we absolutely have to have the accountability enhancements 
and community empowerment in place to have some checks and balances on 
ICANN which will effectively be overseer, contracting party and operator.
>
> ICANN remaining in the USA (which I think is unavoidable at least in 
> the short term) but with an oversight structure which is clearly and 
> indisputably independent from it will in my opinion contribute 
> decisively to minimize this mantra from China, Russia and other 
> countries.
>
> Please note that Brazil is not advocating for moving ICANN out of the 
> USA (only saying that the jurisdiction theme should not be simply 
> discarded), but insisting on the importance of a truly independent 
> oversight with participation of governnents on equal footing in the 
> multistakeholder structure.
>
> We seem to be happy with the current proposal which I like to compare 
> to an impossible concept of a flat and round Earth. Are we really 
> serious in agreeing to an oversight model in which the parent is 
> overseen by a subsidiary, whatever the legal exercises and gimmicks 
> are invented to make us swallow it as workable?
The current model isn't quite that construct.  ICANN is not overseen by 
the affiliate PTI.  PTI is merely a legal vehicle to ensure some 
separation but it is under the oversight and control of ICANN.

Best.

>
> FIFA (sorry to bring this to the dialogue) constituted a similar 
> structure under respectable Swiss professor Mark Pieth - the IGC, as 
> an internal structure funded by FIFA. We know well the results of the 
> inefficacy of accountability mechanisms in the FIFA case.
>
> This is what I would like to have discussed in both the NCUC and NCSG 
> meetings.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987