[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?

[Roberto Gaetano]

Parminder,
You continue with this vague approach. I am not willing to give any "value"
statement for something that I believe is not feasible - or, worse, that if
done is worse than the starting situation.
Therefore, I will drop this conversation unless there are some "real" things
to discuss, i.e. answers to e.g. the following questions:
1) how would draft Bylaws and draft incorporation documents look like (hint:
they cannot remain "as is" even if the functions that ICANN has to perform
will be unchanged)
2) what would be the governance structure (hint: now the policy development
is with the community, US has just the "power" of validating the changes to
the root, and even that is going to vanish with the IANA Oversight
Transition - obviously the new model must not give more powers to
governments than the one that the US has today)
3) what would be the role of the judicial system, i.e. what court decisions
would affect ICANN's operations (hint: you are right, now US courts have a
power that other courts do not have - however, the judicial system in a
democracy is part of the balance of powers, if you delete this power you
unbalance the system, and create a situation where one level of
accountability disappears, and the result will be an ICANN that has immunity
whatever it does - I am sure this is not your intention, so I need to know
what exactly, and how, you foresee as appeal to a judicial court, maybe the
International Court of Justice or whatever, where a layman from anywhere in
the world can appeal an ICANN decision)
4) what would this "brief" international treaty look like, and which
countries would be ready to sign it (hint: no ether, a *real* text and a
*real* statement of commitment from member states of the future
International Treaty Organization that will be the signature and custodian
of this International Treaty)
Maybe others would have more questions in this line.
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 at 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 -
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 at 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 at 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 work methods of ICANN (as they are) and further granting
> >> immunity from host country jurisdictions.
> >>
> >> The text of such a short treaty document will require to be such that
> >> US would accede to, and it can make sure that ICANN's status quo is
> > protected...
> >> There will be no way to change that status quo - believe me, there is
> >> a
> > rule of
> >> law in the international domain - unless US (and its allies) agrees
> >> to
> > such a
> >> change. And there is no reason that it will. Such an arrangement
> >> protects
> > the
> >> ICANN's global governance role both from US's unilateral interference
> > (from
> >> which it is not protected right now) and of any other country,
> >> including,
> > the
> >> very unlikely chance of all non US countries ganging up because still
> >> US
> > will
> >> have to agree to any change..... Now please tell me why and how this
> >> arrangement is not a better protection from any undue interference
> >> with ICANN's mandate and working than the current arrangement
> whereby
> >> (even post transition) US's judicial, legislative and executive
> >> agencies can any
> > time
> >> interfere with ICANN's working? No solution will be perfect, but
> >> trade
> > offs
> >> between different kinds have to be assessed, form the point of view
> >> of people worldwide, and not just of the US and its allies.
> >>
> >> My article also gave a clear example.... Say, the US pharma industry
> > brings up
> >> a case against an Indian generic drug manufacturer, Sun Pharma, with
> >> the gTLD .SuPha, in a US court alleging that the latter is
> >> compromising its
> > patents
> >> in its global generic drug business, a case which otherwise done not
> >> hold either in an Indian court or of those countries to which
> >> SunPharma sells
> > its
> >> drugs, and the US court orders seizure of all US based assets of
> >> SunPharma including its gTLD.
> >> Accordingly, the US court orders ICANN to de-notify  .SuPha and the
> >> root server maintainer to remove it from the root file. This is an
> >> extremely
> > likely
> >> scenario... I can give a thousand similar examples of various issues
> >> that
> > US
> >> gov and US business can have with many entities of other countries,
> >> whereby similar consequences can follow. Is this fair...? Is such a
> >> non democratic system acceptable in this world in the 21st century?
> >> Why should non US actors, people and countries accept such a system?
> >> Do you have any preparation of defence against these very likely, in
> >> fact inevitable
> > scenarios
> >> (esp with new gTLDs) ?
> >>
> >> In the circumstance, how is an international incorporation for ICANN
> >> with host country immunities not better?
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>> 1. Under the UN
> >>> OK. Where exactly?
> >>> Which already existing UN organization will extend its current
> >>> mandate
> > to
> >> cover the assignment of Internet domain names, IP addresses and
> >> protocol parameters?
> >>> Hint: in the past the ITU had thought to be taking this task, but
> >>> then
> > its
> >> governing body (the Member States) have abandoned the idea.
> >>> These days countries are very sensitive to money matters. Extend the
> >> mandate of an UN organization will mean more funding - and you bet
> >> their respective governing bodies (General Assembly or General
> >> Conference of the Member States) will say "no".
> >>> But you are welcome to launch a proposal and try - but it is not the
> > ICANN
> >> community that you need to address, but Member States of an existing
> >> UN organization.
> >>> Otherwise, it is "ether".
> >>>
> >>> 2. New Treaty
> >>> OK. What would be the articles? Would it be different from the ICANN
> >> Bylaws, and if so what would be the role of the community to endors
> >> the change? No "ether" please, just sentences black on white.
> >>> How would you convince the potential signatories (that I would
> >>> assume
> >> would be the member states)? This is a far from trivial task. As I
> >> have
> > pointed
> >> out in a previous message, the CTBTO is still dormant after more than
> >> a decade because the number of countries needed to sign in order to
> >> bring
> > the
> >> protocol in force has not been reached yet. And we are talking about
> >> something sensitive like the ban of nuclear tests, on which the vast
> > majority
> >> of the population agrees. Just as a side note, another very critical
> >> international treaty is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
> >> Everybody
> > agrees
> >> about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, right? It is a matter of
> >> the paramount importance for the survival of the humanity, right?
> >>> However, some countries did not sign, and are therefore not under
> >>> the
> >> obligation to comply with the treaty. In short, they are free to
> > manufacture
> >> nuclear weapons outside any international control.
> >>> Incidentally, India is one of those countries, who have not signed
> >>> the
> >> treaty. Wonder why?
> >>> Still thinking that this is an easy task?
> >>> Go ahead, and please tell my grand-children when this materializes
> >>> in
> >> something different than blah-blah, or "ether" as you call it.
> >>> Cheers, and good luck.
> >>> Roberto
> >
> >
>