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 >> >