<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 09 April 2016 11:45 AM,
Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hjP3hGXMO_PdVgaBj3-FB6aE+yQR7Tj4VL=xmJOxqz=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">snip<br>
<p dir="ltr">
><br>
> Yes, of course....One of the main purposes of such a treaty
would be to earn for ICANN immunity from host country
jurisdiction. All treaty based international organisations have
that..<br>
><br>
SO: As attractive as this may seem and you may be surprised that
I also wish this were possible but I think we must also face the
reality of what it takes to get such treaties? especially the
duration.</p>
</blockquote>
Seun, <br>
<br>
Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a
business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial
jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an
insurmountable problem. We do not have a solution to that problem.
And this problem is not a peripheral one but goes to the heart of
ICANN's main public function of providing domain name services,
globally, hopefully in a fair and just way...<br>
<br>
Now for the treaty that could rid ICANN of this problem, you have
come back to a very weak argument... time needed to do such a
treaty... First of all, I have been hearing this argument for more
than a decade now, enough time to write a treaty many times over.
Second, it is just for the US to agree and such a treaty would take
less time than what the IANA oversight process is taking. I dont
think we can keep repeating this specious argument - treaties take
too much time, over and over again, when a key global governance
issue faces us. Hundreds of global governance problems get addressed
bec some people first decide that yes a treaty is in order, like the
recent climate change one... Where would the world be if everyone
just kept saying well treaties take too long... And after all, if we
agree that a treaty is the right thing (do you?) then let it take
the time it takes, meanwhile you still have the status quo system
working in the interim. So, lets discuss what is right and what
wrong, not the time a solution would take (which, as I said, is not
going to be a lot)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hjP3hGXMO_PdVgaBj3-FB6aE+yQR7Tj4VL=xmJOxqz=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> ICANN serves the global community, so what will the
implications be for the countries that does not sign the
treaties?</p>
</blockquote>
Same way as ICANN serves all countries now, even when they do not
form or participate in the US jurisdiction... This is no problem at
all... First of all, I dont see why a country wont sign, but even if
it did not, it still gets full services (with the option of signing
the treaty open).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hjP3hGXMO_PdVgaBj3-FB6aE+yQR7Tj4VL=xmJOxqz=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> how does ICANN maintain its current multistakeholder
nature if founded on such treaties?.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.... At present it does so under US law - which
mind it, is not multilateral, but state based, of a single state -
after the treaty it will function on the same ms way under the
established international law.... what is the difference, other than
trusting a single state, the US, in the extant situation, more than
all states put together (and able to act only by consensus), in the
proposed new one... I by far trust the later more. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hjP3hGXMO_PdVgaBj3-FB6aE+yQR7Tj4VL=xmJOxqz=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> I think this is just a matter of priorities; we
should weigh which is more important than the other and I think
preservation of the multistakeholder nature of ICANN, it's
openness and it's structure is of importance </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
that remains protected, in my proposal through an international
legal guarantee, rather than a US state based, as currently.... <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hjP3hGXMO_PdVgaBj3-FB6aE+yQR7Tj4VL=xmJOxqz=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">than the threat of jurisdiction which doesn't happen
often (and only affects a scenario when it happens).</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is weak.... you are saying it does not matter if ICANN's
governance is not fair and just to the extent that, say, an Indian
generic drug company avoids taking a gTLD that it otherwise wants to
and should have a right to.... What good than ICANN is, what good is
its elaborate gov mechanism when it fails in this primary
function...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hjP3hGXMO_PdVgaBj3-FB6aE+yQR7Tj4VL=xmJOxqz=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
> parminder <br>
>><br>
>> Cheers!<br>
>> > parminder <br>
>> ><br>
>> >> This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning
based on this statement will lead to any valid conclusion
(unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the
statement.)<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Alejandro Pisanty<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> <message tail snipped><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > At-Large mailing list<br>
>> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
>> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > At-Large Official Site: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>