<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 27 Mar 2016 3:04 p.m., "Roberto Gaetano" <<a href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com">roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Personally, I would not agree to any blank statement of principle without<br>
> concrete answers to the questions above.<br>
> In absence of this, I remain with my position, which is that international<br>
> incorporation of ICANN, that preserves the current multi-stakeholder model,<br>
> could be desirable in theory but is unfeasible in practice.<br>
><br>
SO: There are more that share that personal view as well. +1~</p>
<p dir="ltr">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)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">> Cheers,<br>
> Roberto<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 14:51<br>
> > A: Roberto Gaetano<br>
> > Cc: 'Seun Ojedeji'; 'At-Large Worldwide'<br>
> > Oggetto: Re: R: [At-Large] Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from<br>
> the<br>
> > US government?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Sunday 27 March 2016 04:57 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<br>
> > > Parminder,<br>
> > > I think that we have a communication problem.<br>
> > > I have perfectly understood that you do not want to create a new<br>
> > > structure to do what ICANN is doing, you "only" propose to incorporate<br>
> > > ICANN in a way that it takes the shape of an international treaty<br>
> > > organization - either an already existing one or a brand new one. And<br>
> > > this incorporation process is what I am asking you to describe.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks Roberto, that makes it easier for us to move forward.<br>
> ><br>
> > > You might be surprised to learn that, in theory, I would surely prefer<br>
> > > international incorporation of ICANN rather than US incorporation.<br>
> ><br>
> > That is great. Can we all agree on this and incorporate it in a value<br>
> statement.<br>
> > Things move forward like that. Public interest or civil society groups -<br>
> of<br>
> > which I take ALAC to be a site - first agree on such<br>
> > value statements. Once such a normative standard is agreed to, it is<br>
> > never impossible to find the best fit institutional form (knowing that no<br>
> > solution can be perfect and it can only be better than the others<br>
> available -<br>
> > like a US incorporation of ICANN, for in this case - for the required and<br>
> given<br>
> > considerations.)<br>
> ><br>
> > > However,<br>
> > > it is the practical implementation of an international incorporation<br>
> > > of ICANN that preserves the current multi-stakeholder model that I<br>
> > > believe is unfeasible.<br>
> > I described a process whereby international incorporation will preserve<br>
> the<br>
> > current multistakeholder model, by this model being inscribed centrally in<br>
> > the very text of a new (brief) treaty. And the US, and other<br>
> multistakeholder<br>
> > (MS) model supporting governments, make it a basic condition for agreeing<br>
> > to the treaty. And since such a treaty can be overruled or its text<br>
> changed<br>
> > only with consent of US and other MS model supporters, it can never<br>
> > happen. This way, what you agree as a theoretical preference, and thus I<br>
> > think you consider as normatively much more desirable, can be practically<br>
> > achieved. You have not pointed to any defect in my proposal. But in doing<br>
> so<br>
> > please remember that we can not just go by past experience and we should<br>
> > use all possibilities of innovative available to us, within practical<br>
> possibilities.<br>
> > And also nothing is ever perfect and evaluation should be relative .<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > > And my question is how do you see this international incorporation<br>
> > > happening (ByLaws, separation of powers, etc.).<br>
> ><br>
> > I have mentioned the basic elements above. A simpler option is to do<br>
> > incorporation with no external oversight, and only internal oversight as<br>
> > proposed in the final ICANN accountability proposal now. (I myself in fact<br>
> > prefer an added external oversight, which proposal I will keep separate<br>
> for<br>
> > now not to confuse the international incorporation discussion here. But as<br>
> > my article says, this proposed external oversight is not to be of<br>
> governments.<br>
> > If you or others have interest, I can also share that part separately. But<br>
> for<br>
> > discussing international incorporation just forget that part. We go by the<br>
> > currently proposed internal oversight model and inscribe it in the<br>
> proposed<br>
> > treaty. )<br>
> > > In simple words, it is pointless to continuing describing the ethereal<br>
> > > wonders that this future arrangement will bring:<br>
> ><br>
> > Nothing ethereal in the above above. But of course you have to be looking<br>
> > froward. We have, for instance, been thinking for years how we will<br>
> convince<br>
> > countries - all of which are interested in faster economic growth - to<br>
> agree to<br>
> > begin reducing emission rates... But the Paris agreement did make some<br>
> > progress on this. Same thing can be said of nuclear armament, human rights<br>
> > compliance, SDG goals, and so many other things. There are forces of<br>
> global<br>
> > public governance and consensus making always at work, they work slowly<br>
> > and one must believe in them.<br>
> > And different actors have different roles in the process. The role of<br>
> > concerned public interest and civil society groups - what I characterise<br>
> ALAC<br>
> > to be - is to be driven by higher values and public interest, be forward<br>
> > looking, and pro-actively contribute normative and practical proposals and<br>
> > texts, like for a possible treaty of the kind I have mentioned.<br>
> ><br>
> > > I want to know how you<br>
> > > would do it in practice, for instance how you convince member states<br>
> > > to create an oversight structure that remains an oversight structure<br>
> > > and leaves the policy making process as is.<br>
> > Having followed this issue since the WSIS, I think most member states,<br>
> other<br>
> > than the US, are convinced, and would agree within months. The US will get<br>
> > convinced as it did get convinced to go for the current oversight<br>
> transition,<br>
> > after Snowden disclosures, from the pressure of public opinion - an all<br>
> > important force we normally ignore in our analyses. But for this pressure<br>
> to<br>
> > form and build up, public interest and civil society groups have a big<br>
> role. But<br>
> > if they just give up any forward looking proposal as being too difficult,<br>
> no<br>
> > progress will ever get made... This is why I appeal to groups like the<br>
> ALAC and<br>
> > other IG public interest/ civil society groups to take the initiative in<br>
> this<br>
> > regard. Such initiative should always come from these quarters,<br>
> > governments are too busy with the here and now to do it.<br>
> ><br>
> > parminder<br>
> ><br>
> > > Cheers,<br>
> > > R.<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<br>
> > >> the<br>
> > > US<br>
> > >> government?<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> On Saturday 26 March 2016 09:43 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<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>
> > >>>> 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>
> > >> No one says we are dealing with simple things here. They are very<br>
> > >> complex, 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<br>
> > >> as<br>
> > > you<br>
> > >> promise to tell me what if anything is wrong in it, and the response<br>
> > >> does<br>
> > > not<br>
> > >> disappear into the ether :)<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I'll try to be brief... Unlike what you say below, and John was<br>
> > >> arguing,<br>
> > > there is<br>
> > >> no proposal from my side for any other agency to replace ICANN's<br>
> > >> current working. It is supposed to be preserved as it it. I am not<br>
> > >> sure why I am<br>
> > > unable<br>
> > >> to make this clear despite stating it repeatedly. The proposal is<br>
> > >> 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<br>
> > >> transition process, and which is very dangerous and unacceptable to non<br>
> > US people.<br>
> > >> Such immunity requires international incorporation of the ICANN, with<br>
> > >> the incorporating document clearly, legally, preserving, ICANN's<br>
> > >> current<br>
> > > mandate<br>
> > >> and working.... This incorporating document can be in form of a very<br>
> > >> brief treaty, laying our and legitimising (in international law) the<br>
> > >> mandate and wo</p>