On Thursday 29 December 2016 12:53 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Since you have been using this word 'disingenuous', let me tell you what it disingenuous. It is disingenuous to have told us at that time that jurisdiction should go to WS 2 becuase it was not tid to IANA transition, and then now, after the IANA transition, to tell us, sorry, we cannot do anything about jurisdiction becuase it was ans is tied to IANA transition. That is what is happening, and that is disingenuous.
The only think that puzzles me about this is why you thought it would be any different, when certain members of the community decided to 'give away the farm' (as far as negotiating position is concerned) in Dublin.
Nigel, I do not know what happened in Dublin that you refer to. But I suspect it is about how those who should have held out most strongly to resist continued jurisdiction of the US over ICANN being rather pliant throughout, I do agree and find it most unfortunate. At least about non-US gov reps, I think it is almost their constitutional duty to assert their legal rights over infrastructure that is vital to their respective countries, and to that extent minimise exercise of foreign jurisdictions over such infrastructure. I think GAC should clearly be more active on this. How can they take it sitting down that this 'community process' 'decides' that is ok for US to keep exercising full jurisdictional authority over such key governance activities pertaining to a global infrastructure. They would be failing their country’s and people's, and constitutional, commitment to sovereignty. It is also the moral duty of everyone who stands by democratic values to support this. As to why it would be any different this time around, just that the right cause is the right cause, and one needs to keep advocating it. Right changes can take time, but when the logic of righteousness and justice is on its side, change will come. Abandoning the struggle midway would be wrong. For, in abandoning such a struggle you do not just give up one thing, you give up the corresponding values, and that loss is too big.
Change only occurs when there is bargaining power, never otherwise.
I dont what to get into it -- bec I would immediately hear voices like, "did we not say this is what he is driving at" -- but the fact is that people and other countries do have a lot of bargaining power here. They have simply not exercised those muscles, bec one wants to do things with minimum disruption. But people do not have infinite patience against illegitimate rule or governance. We all know that ICANN's governance system is really based on a so called voluntary compliance.... This can be used in many ways to turn it against the US ruled status quo. I am not advocating it, but since you raised issues of power, I as an activist must make the case for people's power. Just that much.
It's clear that WS2, while not entirely and purely a figleaf, is not going to make anything other than token changes to the ICANN that was created in WS1.
So, you are saying the whole thing of WS 2 is disingenuous. I do appreciate your point - but then let us show that it is disingenuous, and that is how the powerful rule, and that is the kind of power people have to content with. At another level, I have great interest in calling out the facades that ICANN runs in name of open participative processes.
Some of us have seen in this all before, in 2003.
I challenge you all to manage to achieve something different this time round.
You challenge is well taken :). Meet you in 2017. Happy new year to all! parminder
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction