Thanks, Matthew. Yes, it is even worse than I envisioned. I see little 
chance of this changing...

It seems the need for a contract in the separability option is driving 
solutions with dubious accountability guarantees.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 24-06-15 10:58, Matthew Shears wrote:
> 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.
>