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
>>
>