[At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
toml at communisphere.com
Sat Apr 9 18:51:45 UTC 2016
I'm a grassroots guy trying to find a way for the Net to address the
needs of my neighborhood. And a lot of this global stuff goes over my
head. But if the GAC were to move ahead on a treaty, I suspect many of
us would say "Hey! This is supposed to be a bottom up process. The
governments pushing a treaty, no way, top-down, boo."
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up,
and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in
his concerns about gTLD governance.)
But I'm not in love with the idea of a traditional treaty organization.
Perhaps we could address the issues raised in a creative manner, break
with tradition and fashion a multi-stakeholder treaty. For a start,
perhaps we could present the states with an outline of what the At-Large
sees as a suitable outcome, solicit their thoughts, while suggesting
that the solution should include a continuing role for the At-Large. And
see what they draft.
On 4/9/2016 10:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Unlike what many think, and Roberto Gaetano has argued, a treaty does
> not necessarily mean inter-gov mechanism for a body's functioning, I
> am asking for a treaty that simply establishes international law that
> allows ICANN to stay and function exactly as it does at present....
> It was my intention not to further comment to this thread, that is
> bringing us nowhere, because we disagree, and are both unable to
> convince the other party.
> So, we are all losing time.
> However, since you call me directly in your message, I will provide a
> **last** reply.
> Treaties are done by governments, not civil society. We are the
> internet user community, governments are in the GAC.
> If you believe it is an easy thing to do, please go ahead and do it.
> As I told you already, go and convince governments, and come back with
> something we can work on that is not just fluff – or ether.
> Since you are insisting in not doing that, I matured the convincement
> that you are well aware that what you propose will not be supported by
> governments, and you are just playing politics: words, that go nowhere.
> Actually, did you propose this to the GAC, which would be the
> appropriate forum? If yes, what was the answer? If no, why not?
> If I see a meaningful draft, endorsed by a substantial number of
> governments, I will apologize to you and collaborate. Until I do not
> see this, I will remain of my opinion, that you are proposing
> something that is unfeasible.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large