Excellent statement

Sent from my iPhone

@arunmsukumar
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
National Law University, Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com 
Ph:+91-9871943272

> On 21-Jun-2015, at 10:05 am, Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> *  >>BRAZIL: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE. I'D
> LIKE TO ALSO START BY THANKING THE TWO CO-CHAIRS OF THE GROUP AND TO
> ACKNOWLEDGE THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS INVESTED IN
> THE PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL BEFORE US. WE THINK A LOT OF
> WORK, EFFORT, AND REAL ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE SO MANY VIEWS WAS VESTED
> IN THIS EXERCISE AND WE'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
>     *  HOWEVER, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO, AS KAVOUSS ARASTEH HAS MENTIONED,
> AND HE MADE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN HIS PARTICIPATION AND -- AS
> REPRESENTATIVE OF IRAN -- AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GAC, I WOULD ALSO LIKE
> TO MAKE IN A SIMILAR FASHION KIND OF A DIFFERENTIATION OR CLARIFICATION
> WITH REGARD TO OUR ROLE HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THIS BODY AND THE
> POSITION OF THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE. *WE, OF COURSE,
> COORDINATE INTERNALLY WITH DIFFERENT MINISTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS, AND
> OF COURSE THE BEST EFFORT WE MAKE, WE HAVE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS TO MAKE
> SURE IT IS ENDORSED BY THE WIDER GROUP. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE
> MISLEADING TO SAY THAT BY SAYING YES HERE, WE ARE -- THE BRAZILIAN
> GOVERNMENT IS SAYING YES. I THINK THIS IS THE WAY GOVERNMENTS
> NORMALLY OPERATE.* AND I THINK MAYBE THIS WILL BE THE SAME WOULD
> APPLY TO OTHER COLLEAGUES. BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS EVERYTHING
> WE DO HERE (INDISCERNIBLE) REFERENDUM OF FINAL APPROVAL BY THE
> GOVERNMENT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FULL AREAS INVOLVED. THIS IS ON
> THE ONE HAND.
>     *  JUST TO MENTION IN REGARD TO THAT, *OUR MINISTER OF
> COMMUNICATIONS IS COMING TO TOWN TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEF HIM ON
> EVERYTHING THAT IS TAKING PLACE. HE IS ONE OF THE MINISTERS INVOLVED,
> AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONVEY TO HIM EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE
> SAID HERE.*
>     *  IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW REFLECTIONS
> IN THE SENSE WE THINK IT ADDRESSES -- IT TAKES ON BOARD SOME CONCERNS
> WE HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OTHER CONCERNS, IMPORTANT
> CONCERNS WE HAVE ARE NOT DEALT WITH ADEQUATELY. WE HAVE INDICATED
> THIS IN OUR COMMENTS WE SENT BOTH TO THE CWG STEWARDSHIP AND CCWG
> ACCOUNTABILITY GROUPS.
>     *  BASICALLY, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL, WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS
> EXERCISE AS ONE IN WHICH THE DEFINED OUTCOME WOULD ADDRESS THE NTIA
> REQUIREMENTS. THE (INDISCERNIBLE) WE ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE.
> WE THINK THIS ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING, AND WE
> DON'T SEE THERE ANY CONSISTENCY WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING, SO
> WE ARE FULLY BEHIND THIS.
>     *  AT THE OTHER SIDE, WE ARE ALSO ACCOUNTABLE, OF COURSE, TO OUR OWN
> GOVERNMENTS AND TO SOME HISTORICAL DEMANDS WE HAVE IN REGARD TO
> THIS PROCESS. FIRST OF ALL, WE STILL -- AND WE WILL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY OF
> THOSE DAYS WE HAVE HERE IN BUENOS AIRES TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL
> AND TO DISCUSS WITH THE CO-CHAIRS AND COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE WE WERE
> VERY FIRMLY INTERESTED THAT AT THE END WE WOULD HAVE REALLY CLEAR
> SEPARATION BETWEEN THE POLICY OPERATIONAL ASPECTS . *AT THIS POINT I
> MUST SAY THE PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE -- SEEMS TO HAVE
> SOME INCONSISTENCIES. ON THE ONE HAND WE SAY THERE IS A LEGAL
> SEPARATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAY PTI SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY
> ICANN. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AROUND THIS,
> BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT IN THE END, THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WILL BE
> REACHED.* AND I THINK MAYBE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM ABOUT THIS IS
> THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING -- *WE HAVE NOT BEEN
> WORKING ON A CLEAN SLATE OR A BLANK SHEET, HAVING ALL THE OPTIONS
> BEFORE US. EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST OUR
> PROPOSALS, OUR MECHANISM TO EXISTING STATUS. SO ANYTHING THAT COMES
> FORWARD AS A PROPOSAL SHOULD ADJUST ITSELF TO THE FACT THAT ICANN IS
> INCORPORATED AS AN ENTITY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION, AND WE
> THINK -- IT MIGHT BE OKAY, BUT IT REFLECTS A SITUATION THAT WAS
> PREDETERMINED AS WE STARTED THIS EXERCISE, THAT WAS IMPOSED. IT WAS NOT
> AGREED BY THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, AND BY GOVERNMENTS AS PART OF THAT
> COMMUNITY.* SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST A NEW ERA TO THE
> EXISTING FORMATS, WHICH -- AND WE ENDORSING THIS. SO FOR GOVERNMENTS,
> I THINK IT'S A VERY HARD STEP TO TAKE. IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED THING, MAYBE.
>     *  USUALLY, AS A GOVERNMENT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN HAVING A
> DECISION THAT WILL GO AGAINST OUR (INDISCERNIBLE) TO THE EXTENT THAT
> WE'RE PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE PROCESS THAT WILL LEAD TO THIS
> DECISION. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS TO -- ON THE BASIS OF SOMETHING
> THAT WAS ALREADY THERE AND WHICH WE DID NOT PARTICIPATE, TRYING TO
> REFLECT ON HOW TO IMPROVE IT BUT MAINTAINING THE SAME
> CHARACTERISTICS. SO WE THINK IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING THING FROM A
> PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENT. AND OF COURSE THIS IS NOT SOME THINGS -- A
> DECISION WE SHOULD TAKE LIGHTLY.
>     *  WE HAVE, IF I WOULDN'T LIKE TO MENTION, OUR OWN CRITERIA OR OUR
> OWN RED LINES, BUT WE THINK IN THE END *SOME REFLECTIONS SHOULD BE
> GIVEN TO THE ISSUE OF HOW ICANN WILL EMERGE FROM THIS WITH MORE
> LEGITIMACY, VIS-A-VIS ALL STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, AND WE
> DON'T SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS IS BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE
> AT HAND.* SO BASICALLY WHAT I'D LIKE JUST TO INDICATE FROM THE START IS
> THAT WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS EXERCISE IN THE -- WE THINK IN A
> CONSTRUCTIVE MODE. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN THERE, AND FOLLOWING AND
> MAKING INPUTS TO THOSE PROCESSES. BUT I THINK WE -- AND I THINK THIS IS
> ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CO-CHAIRS; THAT WE HAVE -- WE
> MUST HAVE THE -- AN APPRAISAL OF THE FULL PICTURE THAT WILL EMERGE FROM
> THIS, THE TWO PROPOSALS COMBINED, HOW THEY WILL LOOK, HOW THE
> PARLANCE OF THAT PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT WE
> HAVE IMPROVED IN REGARD TO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND IT IS NOT SO CLEAR
> FOR US RIGHT NOW.
>     *  AND BASICALLY, JUST TO CONCLUDE, TO SAY THAT *THIS EXERCISE INVOLVES
> DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CULTURES IN REGARD TO
> GOVERNMENTS, CLEARLY THE CULTURE AND THE WAY GOVERNMENTS ARE
> COMFORTABLE IN WORKING IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED. WE WORK UNDER RULES.
> WE HAVE NOT DESIGNS. I SEE IN MANY DOCUMENTS THAT WE MUST STICK TO THE
> RULES AND REGULATIONS WE ARE FORCED TO ADOPT. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY
> STRANGE TO DO. IT'S NOT SOMETHING USUAL, AND WE'LL HAVE TO REPORT BACK
> TO OUR GOVERNMENT AND SAY WE HAVE BEEN THERE, WE HAVE AGREED TO THIS,
> AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T
> MEET SOME OF THOSE VERY BASIC CONCERNS, IN THE END IT MIGHT BE
> MISLEADING FOR US TO SAY HERE WE ARE GIVING FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE
> PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXERCISE FROM THE
> BEGINNING AS ONE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A NEW PARADIGM OF COOPERATION
> BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED, ONE IN WHICH ALL
> STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND HAVE FULL LIBERTY TO DISCUSS AMONG
> THE STAKEHOLDERS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DESIGN A NEW FORMAT FOR
> COOPERATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DID NOT TAKE PLACE. WE HAVE BEEN
> SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. I DON'T THINK THIS WILL COME AS A
> SURPRISE TO YOU.* WE THINK THE -- *WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN A
> STRAITJACKET, AND IT BECOMES CLEARLY EVIDENT WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME VERY
> CREATIVE IDEAS THAT CAME TO THE FORE AND THEY WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE
> THEY DO NOT ADJUST TO THE FORM THAT WE -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY
> UNCOMFORTABLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS.* MAYBE, IN THE
> END, WE MAY COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IT ADDRESSES OR IT IS IN OUR BEST
> INTEREST TO ENDORSE THE SITUATION BECAUSE IN THE FINAL BALANCE, IT WILL
> BE IN A BETTER POSITION, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE STILL NEED TO REFLECT.
>     *  SO AGAIN, *WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH
> YOU TO HAVE BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL;
> HOWEVER, WE WILL LOOK AT SOMETHING MUCH MORE AMBITIOUS THAT WILL
> PROVIDE REAL SEPARATION, REAL INDEPENDENT OVERVIEW. AND WE THINK AT
> THIS POINT IT DOESN'T -- THE PROPOSAL*, AS IT STANDS, WILL NEED SOME MORE
> DETAILS ON HOW THIS WOULD WORK. THANK YOU.