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

Roberto Gaetano roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 26 16:13:16 UTC 2016

> Il giorno 24.03.2016, alle ore 10:00, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> ha scritto:
> International incorporation either follows a new treaty, or can be under the UN....

And I do believe that either case is far from simple.
Just stating the principle is "ether" - unless it is vested with a practical proposal.

1. Under the UN
OK. Where exactly?
Which already existing UN organization will extend its current mandate to cover the assignment of Internet domain names, IP addresses and protocol parameters?
Hint: in the past the ITU had thought to be taking this task, but then its governing body (the Member States) have abandoned the idea.
These days countries are very sensitive to money matters. Extend the mandate of an UN organization will mean more funding - and you bet their respective governing bodies (General Assembly or General Conference of the Member States) will say "no".
But you are welcome to launch a proposal and try - but it is not the ICANN community that you need to address, but Member States of an existing UN organization.
Otherwise, it is "ether".

2. New Treaty
OK. What would be the articles? Would it be different from the ICANN Bylaws, and if so what would be the role of the community to endors the change? No "ether" please, just sentences black on white.
How would you convince the potential signatories (that I would assume would be the member states)? This is a far from trivial task. As I have pointed out in a previous message, the CTBTO is still dormant after more than a decade because the number of countries needed to sign in order to bring the protocol in force has not been reached yet. And we are talking about something sensitive like the ban of nuclear tests, on which the vast majority of the population agrees. Just as a side note, another very critical international treaty is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Everybody agrees about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, right? It is a matter of the paramount importance for the survival of the humanity, right?
However, some countries did not sign, and are therefore not under the obligation to comply with the treaty. In short, they are free to manufacture nuclear weapons outside any international control.
Incidentally, India is one of those countries, who have not signed the treaty. Wonder why? 
Still thinking that this is an easy task?
Go ahead, and please tell my grand-children when this materializes in something different than blah-blah, or "ether" as you call it.

Cheers, and good luck.

More information about the At-Large mailing list