I am not an American. I understand the sentiment for opening up
jurisdictional options, but I think they should very very very much be
resisted. The best jurisdiction is the one _that enables
multi-stakeholderism_ and _constrain internationalism_.
*That* is the jurisdiction we should seek. Not the one that "moves it
out of the US".
Anti-US sentiment and/or anti-unilateralism sentiment and/or sympathetic
sentiment for an emerging, friendlier, new multi-governmental leadership
on the global scale will be rbought to bear on the jurisdictional issue,
and thus will get lots of traction. Many well-intentioned people are
thus susceptible to find sympathy in the jurisdictional issue but I
think internationalization is a threat equal to that of the internal model.
I have been far away from the talks you guys have delve into, but I do
not think there is a possible model of an inter-national*jurisdiction*
that does not imply or otherwise empower some form of inter-governmental
*foundation*. Multi-stakeholderim and internationalism *are* mutually
exclusive. All governments will want to sow the seed of enhanced
inter-governmental governance and the fact that some countries have a
good human rights record and are good international citizens does not
change the fact that multi-stakeholderism is by definition distinct from
inter-nationalism.
What I think may be lacking and what is probably causing problems in the
designing of the separability solution is the weakness of the
multi-stakeholder [democratic] foundation, and that is perhaps what
should be strengthened.
Nicolas
On 2015-06-24 1:37 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I would like to join the voices that are expressing the opinion that
> we would should not view positions on various aspects of the proposed
> post IANA transition governance structures as reflecting positions by
> governments with various track records with regard to openness,
> privacy and security. The Internet is a disruptive technology in a
> number of areas, include governance itself.
>
> Seun Ojedeji’s comments about the internationalization of ICANN
> underline that what we mean by “internationalization” in terms of
> governance is similarly in a disruptive state. The multilateral
> solutions of the post World War II period have shown strengths, but
> also enough weaknesses that they are deemed not an appropriate option
> here. There is no “Emerald City” international governance template
> that is the gold standard of multistakeholder governance. We are
> building in disrupted territory here.
>
> The future for ICANN, however the IANA transition unfolds, will of
> necessity be a work in process. Much of what is being worked on now it
> to build in enough strengths to protect the IANA and ICANN missions,
> and safeguards so that the governance work in progress, beyond the
> transition, is not be driven in the wrong directions.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
> On 2015-06-24 2:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Every-time i hear about need for internalisation of ICANN through
>> jurisdiction, it always makes me wonder a few things:
>>
>> - How does internalisation of an organisation gets reflected by its
>> jurisdiction?
>>
>> - Isn't an organisation going to be in a country anyway? is there any
>> country without the ability to exercise its sovereignty at any time
>> i.e if there is less devils in the details of some preferred
>> countries now, what would prevent more devils from emerging in those
>> details after ICANN gets moved over to that jurisdiction
>>
>> Regards
>
|