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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 27 Mar 2016 3:04 p.m., "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano at 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.
>
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!

> 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 wo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160327/8b0252d5/attachment.html>