Thanks, Matthew. Yes, it is even worse than I envisioned. I see little chance of this changing... It seems the need for a contract in the separability option is driving solutions with dubious accountability guarantees. frt rgds --c.a. On 24-06-15 10:58, Matthew Shears 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. >