<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 27 Mar 2016 12:27, "Roberto Gaetano" <<a href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com">roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> You might be surprised to learn that, in theory, I would surely prefer<br>
> international incorporation of ICANN rather than US incorporation. However,<br>
> it is the practical implementation of an international incorporation of<br>
> ICANN that preserves the current multi-stakeholder model that I believe is<br>
> unfeasible. </p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: +1 and this is entirely in sync with my line of thought as well.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
><br>
><br>
> > -----Messaggio originale-----<br>
> > Da: parminder [mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
> > Inviato: domenica 27 marzo 2016 08:30<br>
> > A: Roberto Gaetano<br>
> > Cc: Seun Ojedeji; At-Large Worldwide<br>
> > Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the<br>
> US<br>
> > government?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Saturday 26 March 2016 09:43 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > >> Il giorno 24.03.2016, alle ore 10:00, parminder<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> ha scritto:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> International incorporation either follows a new treaty, or can be<br>
> under<br>
> > the UN....<br>
> > > Correct.<br>
> > > And I do believe that either case is far from simple.<br>
> ><br>
> > No one says we are dealing with simple things here. They are very complex,<br>
> > certainly.<br>
> > > Just stating the principle is "ether" - unless it is vested with a<br>
> practical<br>
> > proposal.<br>
> > I am happy to give practical proposals, as I have often done, as long as<br>
> you<br>
> > promise to tell me what if anything is wrong in it, and the response does<br>
> not<br>
> > disappear into the ether :)<br>
> ><br>
> > I'll try to be brief... Unlike what you say below, and John was arguing,<br>
> there is<br>
> > no proposal from my side for any other agency to replace ICANN's current<br>
> > working. It is supposed to be preserved as it it. I am not sure why I am<br>
> unable<br>
> > to make this clear despite stating it repeatedly. The proposal is just to<br>
> have<br>
> > immunity from currently applicable US jurisdiction - executive,<br>
> legislative and<br>
> > judicial - over ICANN, which does not change with oversight transition<br>
> > process, and which is very dangerous and unacceptable to non US people.<br>
> > Such immunity requires international incorporation of the ICANN, with the<br>
> > incorporating document clearly, legally, preserving, ICANN's current<br>
> mandate<br>
> > and working.... This incorporating document can be in form of a very brief<br>
> > treaty, laying our and legitimising (in international law) the mandate and<br>
> > work methods of ICANN (as they are) and further granting immunity from<br>
> > host country jurisdictions.<br>
> ><br>
> > The text of such a short treaty document will require to be such that US<br>
> > would accede to, and it can make sure that ICANN's status quo is<br>
> protected...<br>
> > There will be no way to change that status quo - believe me, there is a<br>
> rule of<br>
> > law in the international domain - unless US (and its allies) agrees to<br>
> such a<br>
> > change. And there is no reason that it will. Such an arrangement protects<br>
> the<br>
> > ICANN's global governance role both from US's unilateral interference<br>
> (from<br>
> > which it is not protected right now) and of any other country, including,<br>
> the<br>
> > very unlikely chance of all non US countries ganging up because still US<br>
> will<br>
> > have to agree to any change..... Now please tell me why and how this<br>
> > arrangement is not a better protection from any undue interference with<br>
> > ICANN's mandate and working than the current arrangement whereby (even<br>
> > post transition) US's judicial, legislative and executive agencies can any<br>
> time<br>
> > interfere with ICANN's working? No solution will be perfect, but trade<br>
> offs<br>
> > between different kinds have to be assessed, form the point of view of<br>
> > people worldwide, and not just of the US and its allies.<br>
> ><br>
> > My article also gave a clear example.... Say, the US pharma industry<br>
> brings up<br>
> > a case against an Indian generic drug manufacturer, Sun Pharma, with the<br>
> > gTLD .SuPha, in a US court alleging that the latter is compromising its<br>
> patents<br>
> > in its global generic drug business, a case which otherwise done not hold<br>
> > either in an Indian court or of those countries to which SunPharma sells<br>
> its<br>
> > drugs, and the US court orders seizure of all US based assets of SunPharma<br>
> > including its gTLD.<br>
> > Accordingly, the US court orders ICANN to de-notify .SuPha and the root<br>
> > server maintainer to remove it from the root file. This is an extremely<br>
> likely<br>
> > scenario... I can give a thousand similar examples of various issues that<br>
> US<br>
> > gov and US business can have with many entities of other countries,<br>
> > whereby similar consequences can follow. Is this fair...? Is such a non<br>
> > democratic system acceptable in this world in the 21st century? Why should<br>
> > non US actors, people and countries accept such a system? Do you have any<br>
> > preparation of defence against these very likely, in fact inevitable<br>
> scenarios<br>
> > (esp with new gTLDs) ?<br>
> ><br>
> > In the circumstance, how is an international incorporation for ICANN with<br>
> > host country immunities not better?<br>
> ><br>
> > parminder<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > 1. Under the UN<br>
> > > OK. Where exactly?<br>
> > > Which already existing UN organization will extend its current mandate<br>
> to<br>
> > cover the assignment of Internet domain names, IP addresses and protocol<br>
> > parameters?<br>
> > > Hint: in the past the ITU had thought to be taking this task, but then<br>
> its<br>
> > governing body (the Member States) have abandoned the idea.<br>
> > > These days countries are very sensitive to money matters. Extend the<br>
> > mandate of an UN organization will mean more funding - and you bet their<br>
> > respective governing bodies (General Assembly or General Conference of<br>
> > the Member States) will say "no".<br>
> > > But you are welcome to launch a proposal and try - but it is not the<br>
> ICANN<br>
> > community that you need to address, but Member States of an existing UN<br>
> > organization.<br>
> > > Otherwise, it is "ether".<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 2. New Treaty<br>
> > > OK. What would be the articles? Would it be different from the ICANN<br>
> > Bylaws, and if so what would be the role of the community to endors the<br>
> > change? No "ether" please, just sentences black on white.<br>
> > > How would you convince the potential signatories (that I would assume<br>
> > would be the member states)? This is a far from trivial task. As I have<br>
> pointed<br>
> > out in a previous message, the CTBTO is still dormant after more than a<br>
> > decade because the number of countries needed to sign in order to bring<br>
> the<br>
> > protocol in force has not been reached yet. And we are talking about<br>
> > something sensitive like the ban of nuclear tests, on which the vast<br>
> majority<br>
> > of the population agrees. Just as a side note, another very critical<br>
> > international treaty is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Everybody<br>
> agrees<br>
> > about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, right? It is a matter of the<br>
> > paramount importance for the survival of the humanity, right?<br>
> > > However, some countries did not sign, and are therefore not under the<br>
> > obligation to comply with the treaty. In short, they are free to<br>
> manufacture<br>
> > nuclear weapons outside any international control.<br>
> > > Incidentally, India is one of those countries, who have not signed the<br>
> > treaty. Wonder why?<br>
> > > Still thinking that this is an easy task?<br>
> > > Go ahead, and please tell my grand-children when this materializes in<br>
> > something different than blah-blah, or "ether" as you call it.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Cheers, and good luck.<br>
> > > Roberto<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</p>