All of this is one of the reasons that the CCWG is going toward a strong international arbitration model, with a new Independent Review Panel process. Since and international “court” is unlikely for a host of reasons, including those identified by Mr. Badii, we chose to focus on a mandatory private law model where all stakeholders can participate. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Stephanie Perrin [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 1:54 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Ominous update on the IANA transition Absolutely right, and I think we need a lot of work on new models with teeth, if we are going to work towards more multi-stakeholder models in international governance. I think many are concerned about bias in US jurisdiction, and while I like the bias towards free speech, one cannot deny that a more international model would be more fair. Question is how to develop one that works. kind regards SP On 2015-05-05 11:49, farzaneh badii wrote: Effective international court is a very nice concept but international courts and tribunals have always been a soft law mechanism with no real judicial power. so we will go back to square one! I don't understand why we would need an international oversight if we can legally hold ICANN (the rule making part of ICANN) accountable in the court of law in the US ? some may say there are accessibility issues, well accessibility issues also exist in international mechanisms! In some international courts only states can file suits against states. I find the Independent Review Panel more effective than an international court ! On 5 May 2015 at 13:28, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: I agree too. For an organization the size of ICANN, one ombudsman to cover a number of accountabilities should suffice. On the other hand, I do agree that ICANN needs an international appeal mechanism for its decisions (ie a Court or Tribunal), I don't think that the Board should be the only appeal mechanism, but that is another matter entirely. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-05-05 10:55, Seun Ojedeji wrote: I tend to agree with Sam on this one, especially the pondering questions raised in relation to international oversight. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 5 May 2015 17:15, "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: Carlos, Thanks for your comment and flagging the issues of an outside international oversight body, the ombudsmans (ombudspersons?) office, and the possibility of another office within ICANN to address “these strategic challenges”. Here are some quick comments from the small to the big in terms of challenges here. In terms of the choice between the ombudsman and some other new ICANN office, my personal view is to prefer the ombudsman, and not just because it would be less expensive in a time of serious ICANN budget constraints (another challenge). I find it hard to envision a new ICANN office dealing with DNS strategic challenges where that office would not become a lightening rod for a wide variety of external forces interested in issues that would amount to pressure for ICANN scope creep. As well, administrative theory and evidence suggests that a new office, in and of itself, would risk scope creep within its own work agenda, to bolster its existence, especially in times of constrained budgets. As for an international (outside) oversight body, for me the core issues are: (a) what principles are to be upheld; (b) keeping clear what should be inside the ICANN DNS system remit; and (c) what within the DNS system should be addressed elsewhere. The primary role of an oversight body is to hold an entity accountable to its remit. How does that get defined in a way that an oversight body: (i) doesn’t foster scope creep by asking ICANN to be accountable for the wrong things, and (ii) helps re-direct DNS concerns (especially content and intellectual property issues) to other appropriate venues? Sam L. On 05/05/2015 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Dear Sam, Powerful message indeed. ICANN needs an outside international oversight body which would, among other tasks, decidedly help in tackling these strategic challenges. But we (NCSG?) seem to agree on this oversight being reduced to an office within ICANN. What would be the real difference between this office and the ombudsman? My answer: the ombudsman is much cheaper. fraternal regards --c.a. -- Farzaneh