I would like to join the voices that are expressing the opinion that we 
would should not view positions on various aspects of the proposed post 
IANA transition governance structures as reflecting positions by 
governments with various track records with regard to openness, privacy 
and security. The Internet is a disruptive technology in a number of 
areas, include governance itself.

Seun Ojedeji’s comments about the internationalization of ICANN 
underline that what we mean by “internationalization” in terms of 
governance is similarly in a disruptive state. The multilateral 
solutions of the post World War II period have shown strengths, but also 
enough weaknesses that they are deemed not an appropriate option here. 
There is no “Emerald City” international governance template that is the 
gold standard of multistakeholder governance. We are building in 
disrupted territory here.

The future for ICANN, however the IANA transition unfolds, will of 
necessity be a work in process. Much of what is being worked on now it 
to build in enough strengths to protect the IANA and ICANN missions, and 
safeguards so that the governance work in progress, beyond the 
transition, is not be driven in the wrong directions.

Sam L.


On 2015-06-24 2:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Every-time i hear about need for internalisation of ICANN through 
> jurisdiction, it always makes me wonder a few things:
>
> - How does internalisation of an organisation gets reflected by its 
> jurisdiction?
>
> - Isn't an organisation going to be in a country anyway? is there any 
> country without the ability to exercise its sovereignty at any time 
> i.e if there is less devils in the details of some preferred countries 
> now, what would prevent more devils from emerging in those details 
> after ICANN gets moved over to that jurisdiction
>
> Regards