Right on, Flavio!

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 24-06-15 13:58, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote:
> Hi Ed
>
> I would like to make some comments following this sentence from your
> message:
> "Many of the governments who have been loudest in opposition to what the
> CWG and CCWG have been doing are amongst the most repressive and freedom
> stiffing in the world."
>
> Of course we shall not consider the Brazilian government among these
> "most repressive governments", and I am sure you did not mean that.
> Since the beginning of this process, the Brazilian representatives in
> the GAC have been consistently raising the issue of jurisdiction and
> asking the community to take this opportunity to consider an approach to
> ICANN's internationalization that goes deeper than in the current
> proposals. This is clearly expressed in the recent comments the
> Brazilian government submitted to both the CWG and CCWG, according to
> established rules regarding public comments.
>
> But this does not mean that the Brazilian government is in opposition to
> what the CWG and CCWG have been doing (as may be the case for other
> governments). I fully agree with you that compromise is at the heart of
> the process, and we must look for the best possible solution given the
> available opportunity and timeline. I believe that the Brazilian
> government is also ready for compromises. As Fadi mentioned in the
> Board-GAC meeting this morning when addressing Brazil's concerns, this
> is a journey, not the end of the journey.
>
> The Brazilian representatives in GAC cannot avoid the fact that other
> governments, even some repressive ones, also support this discussion on
> jurisdiction, although with completely different objectives, since the
> Brazilian government strongly supports the multistakeholder model for
> Internet Governance, which is truly implemented in the country, while
> other governments would like to see an intergovernmental-only solution.
>
> So, I would not like that we disregard claims to keep the discussion on
> jurisdiction alive, on the ground that repressive governments also want
> to discuss the issue or because there are members of the GAC that are
> not taking serioulsy their participation in the CCWG. These things are
> not related to the issue of jurisdiction itself.
>
> For the record, although being a member of the Board of CGI.br, I'm not
> from the Brazilian government and of course I do not feel obliged to
> support all positions from the government. But I fully agree with Carlos
> suggestion that we should not lose this window of opportunity for
> looking for a higher degree of internationalization for ICANN, which is
> very much aligned with the position of the Brazilian government on this
> particular issue.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Flavio
>
>
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I'm in complete agreement with Matt's take on things but would like to
>> make an additional comment about the GAC and it's participation in
>> this process.
>>
>> The GAC does not have a veto. They want to, they threaten one, they do
>> not and should not have one. The same holds true for the United States
>> Congress, the multinational corporate community or even the N.T.I.A.
>> All are stakeholders, part of this cooperative, somewhat messy
>> governance model we call multi-stakeholder.
>>
>> Many of the governments who have been loudest in opposition to what
>> the CWG and CCWG have been doing are amongst the most repressive and
>> freedom stiffing in the world. IMHO they will oppose pretty much
>> anything the community comes up with short of handing responsibility
>> for the naming and numbers responsibilities to themselves through the
>> I.T.U. I'm sorry if I've begun to tune them out. I'm looking to work
>> with entities who approach these issues with open minds and in good
>> faith, not closed minds looking to sabotage our efforts. I should note
>> that the later involves far more than certain members of the GAC.
>>
>> My broader concern involves the way the GAC is functioning regarding
>> the CWG and CCWG. We have had active participation by some GAC members
>> in the CCWG that has been quite constructive and welcome. However, a
>> few of their members have been inactive yet have been charged with
>> reporting  to the GAC on our proceedings. I am concerned that one of
>> their two official presenters on things CCWG is a   GAC member of the
>> CCWG with an attendance record of 12%. I spoke with her this morning
>> and she does not understand the reference model she has been charged
>> with explaining to other GAC members. This is a concern.
>>
>> Carlos, I agree with much of what you have written. I do not like PTI
>> yet recognise that it is the best we could get out of this mess we
>> call multi-stakeholderism. Compromise is at the heart of this process.
>> I will be voting to approve the CWG report on Council later today. In
>> terms of jurisdiction, I look forward to your active participation as
>> we discuss this and action upon your concerns in CCWG work stream 2. I
>> think there are a lot of options in this area that need to be
>> explored. Thanks so much for raising these important issues at this
>> critical stage of the transition process.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Matthew Shears <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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.
>>
>>
>>     --     Matthew Shears
>>     Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>     Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>     + 44 (0)771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>
>>
>>
>
>