I am not an American. I understand the sentiment for opening up 
jurisdictional options, but I think they should very very very much be 
resisted. The best jurisdiction is the one _that enables 
multi-stakeholderism_ and _constrain internationalism_.

*That* is the jurisdiction we should seek. Not the one that "moves it 
out of the US".

Anti-US sentiment and/or anti-unilateralism sentiment and/or sympathetic 
sentiment for an emerging, friendlier, new multi-governmental leadership 
on the global scale will be rbought to bear on the jurisdictional issue, 
and thus will get lots of traction. Many well-intentioned people are 
thus susceptible to find sympathy in the jurisdictional issue but I 
think internationalization is a threat equal to that of the internal model.

I have been far away from the talks you guys have delve into, but I do 
not think there is a possible model of an inter-national*jurisdiction* 
that does not imply or otherwise empower some form of inter-governmental 
*foundation*. Multi-stakeholderim and internationalism *are* mutually 
exclusive. All governments will want to sow the seed of enhanced 
inter-governmental governance and the fact that some countries have a 
good human rights record and are good international citizens does not 
change the fact that multi-stakeholderism is by definition distinct from 
inter-nationalism.

What I think may be lacking and what is probably causing problems in the 
designing of the separability solution is the weakness of the 
multi-stakeholder [democratic] foundation, and that is perhaps what 
should be strengthened.

Nicolas

On 2015-06-24 1:37 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> 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
>