"WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXERCISE FROM THE BEGINNING AS ONE THAT WOULD
PROVIDE A NEW PARADIGM OF COOPERATION BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND
GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED, ONE IN WHICH ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND
HAVE FULL LIBERTY TO DISCUSS AMONG THE STAKEHOLDERS HOW WE ARE GOING TO
DESIGN A NEW FORMAT FOR COOPERATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DID NOT
TAKE PLACE. WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. I DON'T THINK
THIS WILL COME AS A SURPRISE TO YOU."

Well, there have been many who felt like this: "ICANN" does not listen.


Norbert Klein
Cambodia

=

On 06/21/2015 08:30 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Very good and balanced indeed. 
> Marília
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Arun Sukumar
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Excellent statement
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>     @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
>     Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
>     <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/>
>     National Law University, Delhi
>     http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> 
>     Ph:+91-9871943272 <tel:+91-9871943272>
>
>     On 21-Jun-2015, at 10:05 am, Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>>     *  >>BRAZIL: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE. I'D
>>     LIKE TO ALSO START BY THANKING THE TWO CO-CHAIRS OF THE GROUP AND TO
>>     ACKNOWLEDGE THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS INVESTED IN
>>     THE PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL BEFORE US. WE THINK A LOT OF
>>     WORK, EFFORT, AND REAL ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE SO MANY VIEWS WAS VESTED
>>     IN THIS EXERCISE AND WE'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
>>         *  HOWEVER, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO, AS KAVOUSS ARASTEH HAS
>>     MENTIONED,
>>     AND HE MADE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN HIS PARTICIPATION AND -- AS
>>     REPRESENTATIVE OF IRAN -- AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GAC, I WOULD
>>     ALSO LIKE
>>     TO MAKE IN A SIMILAR FASHION KIND OF A DIFFERENTIATION OR
>>     CLARIFICATION
>>     WITH REGARD TO OUR ROLE HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THIS BODY AND THE
>>     POSITION OF THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE. *WE, OF COURSE,
>>     COORDINATE INTERNALLY WITH DIFFERENT MINISTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS, AND
>>     OF COURSE THE BEST EFFORT WE MAKE, WE HAVE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS TO MAKE
>>     SURE IT IS ENDORSED BY THE WIDER GROUP. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE
>>     MISLEADING TO SAY THAT BY SAYING YES HERE, WE ARE -- THE BRAZILIAN
>>     GOVERNMENT IS SAYING YES. I THINK THIS IS THE WAY GOVERNMENTS
>>     NORMALLY OPERATE.* AND I THINK MAYBE THIS WILL BE THE SAME WOULD
>>     APPLY TO OTHER COLLEAGUES. BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS EVERYTHING
>>     WE DO HERE (INDISCERNIBLE) REFERENDUM OF FINAL APPROVAL BY THE
>>     GOVERNMENT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FULL AREAS INVOLVED. THIS
>>     IS ON
>>     THE ONE HAND.
>>         *  JUST TO MENTION IN REGARD TO THAT, *OUR MINISTER OF
>>     COMMUNICATIONS IS COMING TO TOWN TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEF HIM ON
>>     EVERYTHING THAT IS TAKING PLACE. HE IS ONE OF THE MINISTERS INVOLVED,
>>     AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONVEY TO HIM EVERYTHING THAT
>>     WILL BE
>>     SAID HERE.*
>>         *  IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW
>>     REFLECTIONS
>>     IN THE SENSE WE THINK IT ADDRESSES -- IT TAKES ON BOARD SOME CONCERNS
>>     WE HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OTHER CONCERNS, IMPORTANT
>>     CONCERNS WE HAVE ARE NOT DEALT WITH ADEQUATELY. WE HAVE INDICATED
>>     THIS IN OUR COMMENTS WE SENT BOTH TO THE CWG STEWARDSHIP AND CCWG
>>     ACCOUNTABILITY GROUPS.
>>         *  BASICALLY, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL, WE WERE LOOKING AT
>>     THIS
>>     EXERCISE AS ONE IN WHICH THE DEFINED OUTCOME WOULD ADDRESS THE NTIA
>>     REQUIREMENTS. THE (INDISCERNIBLE) WE ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH
>>     THOSE.
>>     WE THINK THIS ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING,
>>     AND WE
>>     DON'T SEE THERE ANY CONSISTENCY WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING, SO
>>     WE ARE FULLY BEHIND THIS.
>>         *  AT THE OTHER SIDE, WE ARE ALSO ACCOUNTABLE, OF COURSE, TO
>>     OUR OWN
>>     GOVERNMENTS AND TO SOME HISTORICAL DEMANDS WE HAVE IN REGARD TO
>>     THIS PROCESS. FIRST OF ALL, WE STILL -- AND WE WILL TAKE THE
>>     OPPORTUNITY OF
>>     THOSE DAYS WE HAVE HERE IN BUENOS AIRES TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL
>>     AND TO DISCUSS WITH THE CO-CHAIRS AND COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE WE WERE
>>     VERY FIRMLY INTERESTED THAT AT THE END WE WOULD HAVE REALLY CLEAR
>>     SEPARATION BETWEEN THE POLICY OPERATIONAL ASPECTS . *AT THIS POINT I
>>     MUST SAY THE PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE -- SEEMS TO
>>     HAVE
>>     SOME INCONSISTENCIES. ON THE ONE HAND WE SAY THERE IS A LEGAL
>>     SEPARATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAY PTI SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY
>>     ICANN. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AROUND THIS,
>>     BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT IN THE END, THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE
>>     WILL BE
>>     REACHED.* AND I THINK MAYBE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM ABOUT THIS IS
>>     THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING -- *WE HAVE NOT BEEN
>>     WORKING ON A CLEAN SLATE OR A BLANK SHEET, HAVING ALL THE OPTIONS
>>     BEFORE US. EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST OUR
>>     PROPOSALS, OUR MECHANISM TO EXISTING STATUS. SO ANYTHING THAT COMES
>>     FORWARD AS A PROPOSAL SHOULD ADJUST ITSELF TO THE FACT THAT ICANN IS
>>     INCORPORATED AS AN ENTITY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION, AND WE
>>     THINK -- IT MIGHT BE OKAY, BUT IT REFLECTS A SITUATION THAT WAS
>>     PREDETERMINED AS WE STARTED THIS EXERCISE, THAT WAS IMPOSED. IT
>>     WAS NOT
>>     AGREED BY THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, AND BY GOVERNMENTS AS PART OF THAT
>>     COMMUNITY.* SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST A NEW ERA TO THE
>>     EXISTING FORMATS, WHICH -- AND WE ENDORSING THIS. SO FOR GOVERNMENTS,
>>     I THINK IT'S A VERY HARD STEP TO TAKE. IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED
>>     THING, MAYBE.
>>         *  USUALLY, AS A GOVERNMENT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN
>>     HAVING A
>>     DECISION THAT WILL GO AGAINST OUR (INDISCERNIBLE) TO THE EXTENT THAT
>>     WE'RE PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE PROCESS THAT WILL LEAD TO THIS
>>     DECISION. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS TO -- ON THE BASIS OF
>>     SOMETHING
>>     THAT WAS ALREADY THERE AND WHICH WE DID NOT PARTICIPATE, TRYING TO
>>     REFLECT ON HOW TO IMPROVE IT BUT MAINTAINING THE SAME
>>     CHARACTERISTICS. SO WE THINK IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING THING FROM A
>>     PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENT. AND OF COURSE THIS IS NOT SOME THINGS -- A
>>     DECISION WE SHOULD TAKE LIGHTLY.
>>         *  WE HAVE, IF I WOULDN'T LIKE TO MENTION, OUR OWN CRITERIA
>>     OR OUR
>>     OWN RED LINES, BUT WE THINK IN THE END *SOME REFLECTIONS SHOULD BE
>>     GIVEN TO THE ISSUE OF HOW ICANN WILL EMERGE FROM THIS WITH MORE
>>     LEGITIMACY, VIS-A-VIS ALL STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, AND WE
>>     DON'T SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS IS BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE
>>     AT HAND.* SO BASICALLY WHAT I'D LIKE JUST TO INDICATE FROM THE
>>     START IS
>>     THAT WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS EXERCISE IN THE -- WE THINK IN A
>>     CONSTRUCTIVE MODE. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN THERE, AND FOLLOWING AND
>>     MAKING INPUTS TO THOSE PROCESSES. BUT I THINK WE -- AND I THINK
>>     THIS IS
>>     ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CO-CHAIRS; THAT WE HAVE
>>     -- WE
>>     MUST HAVE THE -- AN APPRAISAL OF THE FULL PICTURE THAT WILL
>>     EMERGE FROM
>>     THIS, THE TWO PROPOSALS COMBINED, HOW THEY WILL LOOK, HOW THE
>>     PARLANCE OF THAT PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT WE
>>     HAVE IMPROVED IN REGARD TO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND IT IS NOT SO CLEAR
>>     FOR US RIGHT NOW.
>>         *  AND BASICALLY, JUST TO CONCLUDE, TO SAY THAT *THIS
>>     EXERCISE INVOLVES
>>     DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CULTURES IN REGARD TO
>>     GOVERNMENTS, CLEARLY THE CULTURE AND THE WAY GOVERNMENTS ARE
>>     COMFORTABLE IN WORKING IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED. WE WORK UNDER RULES.
>>     WE HAVE NOT DESIGNS. I SEE IN MANY DOCUMENTS THAT WE MUST STICK
>>     TO THE
>>     RULES AND REGULATIONS WE ARE FORCED TO ADOPT. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY
>>     STRANGE TO DO. IT'S NOT SOMETHING USUAL, AND WE'LL HAVE TO REPORT
>>     BACK
>>     TO OUR GOVERNMENT AND SAY WE HAVE BEEN THERE, WE HAVE AGREED TO THIS,
>>     AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T
>>     MEET SOME OF THOSE VERY BASIC CONCERNS, IN THE END IT MIGHT BE
>>     MISLEADING FOR US TO SAY HERE WE ARE GIVING FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE
>>     PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXERCISE FROM THE
>>     BEGINNING AS ONE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A NEW PARADIGM OF COOPERATION
>>     BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED, ONE IN WHICH ALL
>>     STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND HAVE FULL LIBERTY TO DISCUSS AMONG
>>     THE STAKEHOLDERS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DESIGN A NEW FORMAT FOR
>>     COOPERATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DID NOT TAKE PLACE. WE HAVE BEEN
>>     SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. I DON'T THINK THIS WILL COME AS A
>>     SURPRISE TO YOU.* WE THINK THE -- *WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN A
>>     STRAITJACKET, AND IT BECOMES CLEARLY EVIDENT WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME
>>     VERY
>>     CREATIVE IDEAS THAT CAME TO THE FORE AND THEY WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE
>>     THEY DO NOT ADJUST TO THE FORM THAT WE -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING
>>     REALLY
>>     UNCOMFORTABLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS.* MAYBE, IN THE
>>     END, WE MAY COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IT ADDRESSES OR IT IS IN
>>     OUR BEST
>>     INTEREST TO ENDORSE THE SITUATION BECAUSE IN THE FINAL BALANCE,
>>     IT WILL
>>     BE IN A BETTER POSITION, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE STILL NEED TO REFLECT.
>>         *  SO AGAIN, *WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH
>>     YOU TO HAVE BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL;
>>     HOWEVER, WE WILL LOOK AT SOMETHING MUCH MORE AMBITIOUS THAT WILL
>>     PROVIDE REAL SEPARATION, REAL INDEPENDENT OVERVIEW. AND WE THINK AT
>>     THIS POINT IT DOESN'T -- THE PROPOSAL*, AS IT STANDS, WILL NEED
>>     SOME MORE
>>     DETAILS ON HOW THIS WOULD WORK. THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the
> Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
>