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.