Dear Mr Arasteh,
it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work.
My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA.
For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.
This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else.
Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene.
To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job.
This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract.
So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage.
Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally).
This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.
And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be.
As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others.
The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern.
Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here.
As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves.
Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing.
That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination.
Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default.
I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.
greetings, el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
Dear Eberhard
NTIA did say that .
It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet
It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all.
In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else.
I do not agree with your argument at all
Tks and have a nice week-end
Kavouss