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

[Pranesh Prakash]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2016-04-26 12:44:06 -0400]:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> But in the final ICG report, there is no explanation (I know, I searched) as
>> to why the jurisdiction-related concerns raised in those submissions (as
>> part of WS1 and as part of the ICG's mandate) were deemed sufficiently
>> unimportant so as not to merit discussion or reflection in the report.
>
>
> I think you are being disingenous here, you know full well the
> conditions on the outcome of the process set by DoC.
>
>
> Insisting on changing jurisdiction would have scuttled the entire transition.

I argued with Milton at the 2015 IGF on this very point.

If this was a condition, then it should have been stated.  I can't see 
anywhere that the NTIA/DoC has stated this as a condition.

What is the point of having this (illegitimate) condition, and then 
pretending that "we" the "global" "multistakeholder" "community" have 
actually decided the fate of ICANN.

If the emperor is wearing no clothes, I see no point in pretending 
otherwise.

>
> Or was that your goal?

What an asinine question.  Even if rhetorical, it does you disservice.

Is the goal of someone who is calling for true independence rather than 
a fig leaf of independence the scuttling of independence?

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160427/33501eb9/signature.asc>