Right on, Flavio! []s fraternos --c.a. On 24-06-15 13:58, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: > Hi Ed > > I would like to make some comments following this sentence from your > message: > "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." > > Of course we shall not consider the Brazilian government among these > "most repressive governments", and I am sure you did not mean that. > Since the beginning of this process, the Brazilian representatives in > the GAC have been consistently raising the issue of jurisdiction and > asking the community to take this opportunity to consider an approach to > ICANN's internationalization that goes deeper than in the current > proposals. This is clearly expressed in the recent comments the > Brazilian government submitted to both the CWG and CCWG, according to > established rules regarding public comments. > > But this does not mean that the Brazilian government is in opposition to > what the CWG and CCWG have been doing (as may be the case for other > governments). I fully agree with you that compromise is at the heart of > the process, and we must look for the best possible solution given the > available opportunity and timeline. I believe that the Brazilian > government is also ready for compromises. As Fadi mentioned in the > Board-GAC meeting this morning when addressing Brazil's concerns, this > is a journey, not the end of the journey. > > The Brazilian representatives in GAC cannot avoid the fact that other > governments, even some repressive ones, also support this discussion on > jurisdiction, although with completely different objectives, since the > Brazilian government strongly supports the multistakeholder model for > Internet Governance, which is truly implemented in the country, while > other governments would like to see an intergovernmental-only solution. > > So, I would not like that we disregard claims to keep the discussion on > jurisdiction alive, on the ground that repressive governments also want > to discuss the issue or because there are members of the GAC that are > not taking serioulsy their participation in the CCWG. These things are > not related to the issue of jurisdiction itself. > > For the record, although being a member of the Board of CGI.br, I'm not > from the Brazilian government and of course I do not feel obliged to > support all positions from the government. But I fully agree with Carlos > suggestion that we should not lose this window of opportunity for > looking for a higher degree of internationalization for ICANN, which is > very much aligned with the position of the Brazilian government on this > particular issue. > > Kind regards > > Flavio > > > >> 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] >> <mailto:[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 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987> >> >> > >