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 >