[At-Large] Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Thu Apr 28 20:03:28 UTC 2016
having followed the CCWG’s work closely, I can tell you that it is not that jurisdiction was deemed as unimportant but rather as extremely complex to be dealt with as part of WS1. Hence its inclusion as par of the WS2 plan.
> El 26/04/2016, a las 11:02 a.m., Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> escribió:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2016-04-26 11:56:53 -0400]:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>> Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.
>> It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be
>> suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big
>> a lift at that moment).
> Perhaps it is no coincidence that a majority of the submissions from civil society organizations based in India to the ICG raised the issue of jurisdiction.
> 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.
> What an utter farce.
> 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
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the At-Large