[ALAC] Fwd: [IANA-issues] Comments for 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group IANA Stewardship

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear all,

since we are now reaching ALAC commenting - please be so kind to take
note of the message below and spend time to read and comment.

The ALAC has conducted a Webinar on the Topic. The slide deck plus and
full recording and transcripts of the Webinar in French, Spanish and
English can be found on https://community.icann.org/x/iConAw

This is arguably one of the, if not the most important policy process of
the year - a process that will greatly affect end users. If you have any
question, please do not hesitate to ask them. Now's the time.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[IANA-issues] Comments for 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross
Community Working Group IANA Stewardship
Date: 	Sat, 02 May 2015 11:02:40 +0200
From: 	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
To: 	iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
<iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>



Dear all,

the public comment period is closing in merely 18 days.
As mentioned on our Webinars and on the ALAC monthly call, please be so
kind to take some time over the week-end to read all pertaining
documentation.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52898396

We are at the stage of identifying issues which the ALAC should comment
about.

One such issue is that of Jurisdiction. I have heard several concerns in
this part of the world that no part of the proposal contains any aspect
of globalisation, with the Post Transition IANA (PTI) proposed to be
located in the United States - and little work having been done by the
CWG on looking for alternative jurisdictions.

Please be so kind to find Jean-Jacques' proposal, which he makes as a
member of the At-Large IANA Issues Working Group.

On 26/04/2015 17:24, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>
> IMHO, the idea I put forward has several crucial elements:
> - In order to keep alive the notion of a more global Internet, one should consider the possibility of such oversight bodies being endowed, some day, with some sort of legal status. PRF and CSC will no doubt begin as lightweight, non-legal entities, but there may come a time when a different structure may become desirable and possible: excluding an international dimension right from the start would seem short-sighted.
> - It's not about having a jurisdiction "in Europe", but rather a jurisdiction outside of, and additional to, the USA. The reason I mentioned Geneva is because in its recommendations, the papar by ICANN PSC (President's Strategy Committee), "Improving Institutional Confidence", studied in detail various locations in all 5 geographic zones for a potential "additional jurisdiction" (additional to USA), and Geneva came out as (by far) the most suitable location for a thing like ICANN.
> - ICANN and PTI would remain in the US jurisdiction. What I was suggesting was for PRF and CSC to be registered in a different, additional jurisdiction. This would not have any impact on the operations of ICANN and PTI.
> - There is a sociological reality: status quo almost always favours tradition, and the beneficiaries of entitlement. In this case, keeping PRF in the single US jurisdiction, can of course be supported in terms of operational simplicity, but the Internet community from outside the USA cannot ignore that this is not the surest way to evolve towards a more global Internet or Internet governance system.
>
> I remain at your disposal for any clarification.
>
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>

Please comment!

Olivier
_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues