Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 27 Mar 2016 3:04 p.m., "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I would not agree to any blank statement of principle without concrete answers to the questions above. In absence of this, I remain with my position, which is that international incorporation of ICANN, that preserves the current multi-stakeholder
model,
could be desirable in theory but is unfeasible in practice.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Inviato: domenica 27 marzo 2016 14:51 A: Roberto Gaetano Cc: 'Seun Ojedeji'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Oggetto: Re: R: [At-Large] Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
On Sunday 27 March 2016 04:57 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Parminder, I think that we have a communication problem. I have perfectly understood that you do not want to create a new structure to do what ICANN is doing, you "only" propose to incorporate ICANN in a way that it takes the shape of an international treaty organization - either an already existing one or a brand new one. And this incorporation process is what I am asking you to describe.
Thanks Roberto, that makes it easier for us to move forward.
You might be surprised to learn that, in theory, I would surely prefer international incorporation of ICANN rather than US incorporation.
That is great. Can we all agree on this and incorporate it in a value statement. Things move forward like that. Public interest or civil society groups
SO: There are more that share that personal view as well. +1~ Leaving the international incorporation thing aside, it should be noted that a form of external oversight was indeed postulated during the CWG proposal development and those who participated then would acknowledge that the anxiety(of a few) to see that happen dwindled down once we got into details and practical application/implications of such theory (in the current world we live in) Cheers! -
of
which I take ALAC to be a site - first agree on such value statements. Once such a normative standard is agreed to, it is never impossible to find the best fit institutional form (knowing that no solution can be perfect and it can only be better than the others available - like a US incorporation of ICANN, for in this case - for the required and given considerations.)
However, it is the practical implementation of an international incorporation of ICANN that preserves the current multi-stakeholder model that I believe is unfeasible. I described a process whereby international incorporation will preserve the current multistakeholder model, by this model being inscribed centrally in the very text of a new (brief) treaty. And the US, and other multistakeholder (MS) model supporting governments, make it a basic condition for agreeing to the treaty. And since such a treaty can be overruled or its text changed only with consent of US and other MS model supporters, it can never happen. This way, what you agree as a theoretical preference, and thus I think you consider as normatively much more desirable, can be practically achieved. You have not pointed to any defect in my proposal. But in doing so please remember that we can not just go by past experience and we should use all possibilities of innovative available to us, within practical possibilities. And also nothing is ever perfect and evaluation should be relative .
And my question is how do you see this international incorporation happening (ByLaws, separation of powers, etc.).
I have mentioned the basic elements above. A simpler option is to do incorporation with no external oversight, and only internal oversight as proposed in the final ICANN accountability proposal now. (I myself in fact prefer an added external oversight, which proposal I will keep separate for now not to confuse the international incorporation discussion here. But as my article says, this proposed external oversight is not to be of governments. If you or others have interest, I can also share that part separately. But for discussing international incorporation just forget that part. We go by the currently proposed internal oversight model and inscribe it in the proposed treaty. )
In simple words, it is pointless to continuing describing the ethereal wonders that this future arrangement will bring:
Nothing ethereal in the above above. But of course you have to be looking froward. We have, for instance, been thinking for years how we will convince countries - all of which are interested in faster economic growth - to agree to begin reducing emission rates... But the Paris agreement did make some progress on this. Same thing can be said of nuclear armament, human rights compliance, SDG goals, and so many other things. There are forces of global public governance and consensus making always at work, they work slowly and one must believe in them. And different actors have different roles in the process. The role of concerned public interest and civil society groups - what I characterise ALAC to be - is to be driven by higher values and public interest, be forward looking, and pro-actively contribute normative and practical proposals and texts, like for a possible treaty of the kind I have mentioned.
I want to know how you would do it in practice, for instance how you convince member states to create an oversight structure that remains an oversight structure and leaves the policy making process as is. Having followed this issue since the WSIS, I think most member states, other than the US, are convinced, and would agree within months. The US will get convinced as it did get convinced to go for the current oversight transition, after Snowden disclosures, from the pressure of public opinion - an all important force we normally ignore in our analyses. But for this pressure to form and build up, public interest and civil society groups have a big role. But if they just give up any forward looking proposal as being too difficult, no progress will ever get made... This is why I appeal to groups like the ALAC and other IG public interest/ civil society groups to take the initiative in this regard. Such initiative should always come from these quarters, governments are too busy with the here and now to do it.
parminder
Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Inviato: domenica 27 marzo 2016 08:30 A: Roberto Gaetano Cc: Seun Ojedeji; At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
On Saturday 26 March 2016 09:43 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Il giorno 24.03.2016, alle ore 10:00, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> ha scritto: International incorporation either follows a new treaty, or can be under the UN.... Correct. And I do believe that either case is far from simple. No one says we are dealing with simple things here. They are very complex, certainly. Just stating the principle is "ether" - unless it is vested with a practical proposal. I am happy to give practical proposals, as I have often done, as long as you promise to tell me what if anything is wrong in it, and the response does not disappear into the ether :)
I'll try to be brief... Unlike what you say below, and John was arguing, there is no proposal from my side for any other agency to replace ICANN's current working. It is supposed to be preserved as it it. I am not sure why I am unable to make this clear despite stating it repeatedly. The proposal is just to have immunity from currently applicable US jurisdiction - executive, legislative and judicial - over ICANN, which does not change with oversight transition process, and which is very dangerous and unacceptable to non US people. Such immunity requires international incorporation of the ICANN, with the incorporating document clearly, legally, preserving, ICANN's current mandate and working.... This incorporating document can be in form of a very brief treaty, laying our and legitimising (in international law) the mandate and wo