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.

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?

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.