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