Agree and this is one of the reasons we need to spend time on ws2 On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>