<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>Every-time i hear about need for internalisation of ICANN through jurisdiction, it always makes me wonder a few things:<br><br></div>- How does internalisation of an organisation gets reflected by its jurisdiction? <br><br>- 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 <br><br></div>Regards<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Flávio Rech Wagner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:flavio@inf.ufrgs.br" target="_blank">flavio@inf.ufrgs.br</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Ed<br>
<br>
I would like to make some comments following this sentence from your
message:<span class=""><br>
"Many of the governments who have been loudest in opposition to what
the CWG and CCWG have been doing are amongst the most repressive and
freedom stiffing in the world."<br>
<br></span>
Of course we shall not consider the Brazilian government among these
"most repressive governments", and I am sure you did not mean that.
Since the beginning of this process, the Brazilian representatives
in the GAC have been consistently raising the issue of jurisdiction
and asking the community to take this opportunity to consider an
approach to ICANN's internationalization that goes deeper than in
the current proposals. This is clearly expressed in the recent
comments the Brazilian government submitted to both the CWG and
CCWG, according to established rules regarding public comments.<br>
<br>
But this does not mean that the Brazilian government is in
opposition to what the CWG and CCWG have been doing (as may be the
case for other governments). I fully agree with you that compromise
is at the heart of the process, and we must look for the best
possible solution given the available opportunity and timeline. I
believe that the Brazilian government is also ready for compromises.
As Fadi mentioned in the Board-GAC meeting this morning when
addressing Brazil's concerns, this is a journey, not the end of the
journey. <br>
<br>
The Brazilian representatives in GAC cannot avoid the fact that
other governments, even some repressive ones, also support this
discussion on jurisdiction, although with completely different
objectives, since the Brazilian government strongly supports the
multistakeholder model for Internet Governance, which is truly
implemented in the country, while other governments would like to
see an intergovernmental-only solution.<br>
<br>
So, I would not like that we disregard claims to keep the discussion
on jurisdiction alive, on the ground that repressive governments
also want to discuss the issue or because there are members of the
GAC that are not taking serioulsy their participation in the CCWG.
These things are not related to the issue of jurisdiction itself.<br>
<br>
For the record, although being a member of the Board of CGI.br, I'm
not from the Brazilian government and of course I do not feel
obliged to support all positions from the government. But I fully
agree with Carlos suggestion that we should not lose this window of
opportunity for looking for a higher degree of internationalization
for ICANN, which is very much aligned with the position of the
Brazilian government on this particular issue.<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
Flavio<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi everybody,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm in complete agreement with Matt's take on things but
would like to make an additional comment about the GAC and
it's participation in this process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The GAC does not have a veto. They want to, they threaten
one, they do not and should not have one. The same holds true
for the United States Congress, the multinational corporate
community or even the N.T.I.A. All are stakeholders, part of
this cooperative, somewhat messy governance model we call
multi-stakeholder.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many of the governments who have been loudest in opposition
to what the CWG and CCWG have been doing are amongst the most
repressive and freedom stiffing in the world. IMHO they will
oppose pretty much anything the community comes up with short
of handing responsibility for the naming and numbers
responsibilities to themselves through the I.T.U. I'm sorry if
I've begun to tune them out. I'm looking to work with entities
who approach these issues with open minds and in good faith,
not closed minds looking to sabotage our efforts. I should
note that the later involves far more than certain members of
the GAC.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My broader concern involves the way the GAC is functioning
regarding the CWG and CCWG. We have had active participation
by some GAC members in the CCWG that has been quite
constructive and welcome. However, a few of their members have
been inactive yet have been charged with reporting to the GAC
on our proceedings. I am concerned that one of their two
official presenters on things CCWG is a GAC member of the
CCWG with an attendance record of 12%. I spoke with her this
morning and she does not understand the reference model she
has been charged with explaining to other GAC members. This is
a concern.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Carlos, I agree with much of what you have written. I do
not like PTI yet recognise that it is the best we could get
out of this mess we call multi-stakeholderism. Compromise is
at the heart of this process. I will be voting to approve the
CWG report on Council later today. In terms of jurisdiction, I
look forward to your active participation as we discuss this
and action upon your concerns in CCWG work stream 2. I think
there are a lot of options in this area that need to be
explored. Thanks so much for raising these important issues at
this critical stage of the transition process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kind Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ed</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM,
Matthew Shears <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Carlos<br>
<br>
Two thoughts in-line.<br>
<br>
On 6/24/2015 10:20 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi people,<br>
<br>
Just heard China, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia at the GAC
meeting today (June 24). I have been trying to alert
NCUC/NCSG that we should think very seriously about the
way the oversight structure may come to be in the IANA
transition. My concern is that we are losing a window of
opportunity to mnimize the strong pressure from a relevant
group of countries to change ICANN's jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
My view is that we should defend an oversight structure
which is truly independent from ICANN, truly international
in nature (even if it is constituted in the USA, although
the ideal solution would be for it to be established
outside of the USA, recongnizing there may be jurisdiction
problems in this), and multistakeholder on equal footing.<br>
</blockquote>
When we started the work of the CWG the first model
discussions resulted in independent contracting and
oversight through Contract Co and the MRT, the external
model. We fought long and hard to keep those but others
within and outside the WG fought hard for the internal
model. We have a compromise that provides some separation
BUT, from my perspective, we absolutely have to have the
accountability enhancements and community empowerment in
place to have some checks and balances on ICANN which will
effectively be overseer, contracting party and operator.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
ICANN remaining in the USA (which I think is unavoidable
at least in the short term) but with an oversight
structure which is clearly and indisputably independent
from it will in my opinion contribute decisively to
minimize this mantra from China, Russia and other
countries.<br>
<br>
Please note that Brazil is not advocating for moving ICANN
out of the USA (only saying that the jurisdiction theme
should not be simply discarded), but insisting on the
importance of a truly independent oversight with
participation of governnents on equal footing in the
multistakeholder structure.<br>
<br>
We seem to be happy with the current proposal which I like
to compare to an impossible concept of a flat and round
Earth. Are we really serious in agreeing to an oversight
model in which the parent is overseen by a subsidiary,
whatever the legal exercises and gimmicks are invented to
make us swallow it as workable?<br>
</blockquote>
The current model isn't quite that construct. ICANN is not
overseen by the affiliate PTI. PTI is merely a legal
vehicle to ensure some separation but it is under the
oversight and control of ICANN.<br>
<br>
Best.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
FIFA (sorry to bring this to the dialogue) constituted a
similar structure under respectable Swiss professor Mark
Pieth - the IGC, as an internal structure funded by FIFA.
We know well the results of the inefficacy of
accountability mechanisms in the FIFA case.<br>
<br>
This is what I would like to have discussed in both the
NCUC and NCSG meetings.<br>
<br>
fraternal regards<br>
<br>
--c.a.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote>
<span><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Matthew Shears<br>
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)<br>
<a href="tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987" value="+447712472987" target="_blank">+ 44 (0)771 247
2987</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div>
</div>