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