Hello Eberhard,

having carefully read your email, with respect I think some of the points you make need to be clarified, or put into context.


1) Your first assumption is that the only effective control is the one that has been in place for centuries, i.e. a system of rules and sanctions enforced solely by sovereign states, or religious powers. Sanctions could range from temporary severance of diplomatic relations to full-fledged war, and the generations before us suffered many of those. 

Your remark that « the IANA administration (is) being de-politicized » is partly correct, if your definition of « politics » applies to sovereign states, national governments or political parties. However, one of the truly interesting features of the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions, as suggested by our global communities and assembled by us in the ICG, is that the oversight will be a shared responsibility between various categories of stakeholders, instead of only sovereign states. Admittedly, this is a novel construct, and in its short history it has not been fully tested. You are right in suggesting that there is no proof of its effectiveness. That is why the proposal for Transition of Oversight includes several layers and mechanisms of reporting and control, in keeping with the call for improved transparency and accountability which has been voiced more loudly in recent years.


2) Your second point, with reference to a meeting in Lausanne, is that
"the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches »

As I did not attend that meeting in Lausanne, I am not able to support or disprove your quote. However, allow me to point out that the Proposal for Transition of Oversight, on which the NTIA grounded its decision to let expire the IANA contract on 1st October 2016, is PRECISELY NOT a « United Nations » model:

- the members of the UN are EXCLUSIVELY sovereign states, even though other stakeholders may have representation in some UN auxiliary bodies, such as the Economic & Social Council; 

- I leave it to the Co-Chairs of the CCWG to give you the proper wording, but I’m pretty sure they did not propose setting up a « model country » (I suppose you mean a « virtual country »).


3) Your third point is that the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions leaves the global Internet community defenseless. As I mentioned above (1), "That is why the proposal for Transition of Oversight includes several layers and mechanisms of reporting and control, in keeping with the call for improved transparency and accountability which has been voiced more loudly in recent years. »  These complex mechanisms constitute an array of checks and balances, which our global Internet community must now use, in order to test their effectiveness and durability.

A last remark, if I may: there is no predetermined « direction of history », and this is also true for our global Internet: more than in the first decades of ICANN, it is now the privilege, indeed the duty, of each community member to remain vigilant, and to contribute in a meaningful way to the consolidation of this unique Internet, which I call « the first truly universal infrastructure in history ».


Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.




On 4 octobre 2016 at 12:38:12, Eberhard Blocher (director@ourtanzania.com) wrote:

Hello Remo, Roberto and all,

please excuse the perceived lack of explanation. I have personally been to quite a few ICANN meetings, to IGF and (German language) DomainPulse, and similar meetings for more than 10 years, so this is the background of the observation I made. I really thought what I wrote was quite clear, but apparently, judging from what you are writing, this doesn't seem to be the case.

The IANA Stewardship Transition has led to IANA administration being de-politicized, and this, to me, is a big step in the wrong direction.

This year in February, large parts of our communitiy met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the annual DomainPulse conference. At that meeting, Thomas Rickert, who is one of the most important people working in the CCWG, described the IANA Stewardship Transition in great detail, since most of it had been thoroughly discussed and was basically agreed on, at the time. I don't think there have been any major changes in recent months. Thomas made it quite clear that what the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, was a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches. Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing.

So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future.

Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root? Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied.

Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this.

Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish.

Eberhard Blocher
EAHP KG
P.O. Box 30 03 26
50773 Köln
Germany
http://www.eahp.com
Tel. +49-221-9139535
Fax +49-221-2711016
http://cla.tel
Am 04.10.2016 11:39, schrieb Remo Hardeman:
Hello All,

Hello Eberhard,

As in all discussions, please explain. In my humble Point of view, I seriously doubt that a more democratic approach would be harmful to "the rest of us"

Kind regards,

Remo Hardeman



03.10.2016, 20:19, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>:

Hi Eberhard.

You say:

The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world

Can you give a hint on why do you believe that?

In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don’t understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights.

Cheers,

Roberto

 

 

 

 

Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Eberhard Blocher
Inviato: domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09
A: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim)

 

October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

it was declared

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...)

NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it.

Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world.

Eberhard Blocher
EAHP KG
P.O. Box 30 03 26
50773 Köln
Germany
http://www.eahp.com
Tel. +49-221-9139535
Fax +49-221-2711016
http://cla.tel

 


_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org


_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org