Thanks, Norbert. It seems these topics are non-issues for NCUC. The CWG
docs never mention them. There is a vague use of the word "global" in a
trivial phrase, and this is it. As I said before, the word
"international" is never present, much less "jurisdiction", in the CWG
discussion document submitted to ICANN 52. The numbers community never
worries about this, and their final proposal has already been delivered.

It seems we are all happy with an oversight structure based in the USA
and under USA laws, just like ICANN. Why not suggest it to be based in
the same Marina del Rey building as well?

The opportunity to create a truly international oversight will be missed.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 02/12/2015 10:44 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:
> Thanks, Carlos, and thanks to your government,
> 
> 
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
> 
> On 02/11/2015 06:02 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Below is the statement by the government of Brazil (Jandyr), in this
>> morning's GAC session.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> ============
>>
>> Brazil - At the outset let me take this opportunity to praise ICANN
>> for the cross-community efforts currently being undertaken in the
>> field of the IANA stewardship transition and ICANN’s accountability.
>>
>> I’m compelled however to reiterate some general concerns that the
>> Government of Brazil has already expressed in the context of the CWG
>> and the CCWG.
>>
>> And today let me focus in only one of those concerns, which regards
>> the concept of jurisdiction.
>>
>> In our view, this subject hasn’t deserved the appropriate attention so
>> far, even though it should be a key aspect of ICANN’s accountability
>> process.
>>
>> As Ira Magaziner pointed out at the opening ceremony of ICANN 52, and
>> I quote: “ ONE OF THE THINGS WE SET UP IN ICANN WAS THAT IT WOULD BE
>> SELF-FINANCING BECAUSE THAT WAY IT WOULD AVOID CAPTURE BY GOVERNMENTS
>> OR BY COMMERCIAL INTERESTS”.
>>
>> In our view, however, despite recognized efforts to spread its
>> operational functions across the globe, ICANN still remains both US
>> and business-centric, which is not exactly what we, as a developing
>> country, would expect from an organization that should be truly global
>> and serve the global public interest.
>>
>> That being said, we suggest that when the CWG and the CCWG seek for
>> legal advice for their work, they should explore modalities that would
>> allow ICANN’s operations and accountability mechanisms to be as
>> independent as possible from a single country's legislation and/or
>> judicial institutions.
>>
>> It might defeat the purpose for which new and more robust
>> accountability measures are to be implemented if they do not
>> contribute to strengthen stakeholders’ perception – in particular of
>> governments – that ICANN is evolving towards a truly global organization.
>>
>> We are sailing unchartered waters in here and innovative
>> multistakeholder models will certainly be necessary.
>>
>> Perhaps when dealing with such a complex issue we should be as
>> creative as those who invented the Internet.
>>
>> But we believe we have no option since properly handling the issue of
>> jurisdiction will both strengthen ICANN and the multistakeholder model
>> in which Internet Governance has successfully developed so far.
>