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:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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