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 >