Agree and this is one of the reasons we need to spend time on ws2

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks, Ed. I would like to stress that I do not think the final proposal
> which will be eventually agreed upon by NTIA and implemented will be the
> end of the world. I believe there will be a dynamics post-transition which
> will open new opportunities for further change and hopefully improvementes
> regarding the points I have been making.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 24-06-15 12:07, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>> 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]> 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
>>>
>>>
>>