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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 27 Mar 2016 12:27, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You might be surprised to learn that, in theory, I would surely prefer
> international incorporation of ICANN rather than US incorporation.
However,
> it is the practical implementation of an international incorporation of
> ICANN that preserves the current multi-stakeholder model that I believe is
> unfeasible.

SO: +1 and this is entirely in sync with my line of thought as well.

Cheers!
>
>
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Inviato: domenica 27 marzo 2016 08:30
> > A: Roberto Gaetano
> > Cc: Seun Ojedeji; At-Large Worldwide
> > Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the
> US
> > government?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Saturday 26 March 2016 09:43 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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....
> > > Correct.
> > > And I do believe that either case is far from simple.
> >
> > No one says we are dealing with simple things here. They are very
complex,
> > certainly.
> > > Just stating the principle is "ether" - unless it is vested with a
> practical
> > proposal.
> > I am happy to give practical proposals, as I have often done, as long as
> you
> > promise to tell me what if anything is wrong in it, and the response
does
> not
> > disappear into the ether :)
> >
> > I'll try to be brief... Unlike what you say below, and John was arguing,
> there is
> > no proposal from my side for any other agency to replace ICANN's current
> > working. It is supposed to be preserved as it it. I am not sure why I am
> unable
> > to make this clear despite stating it repeatedly. The proposal is just
to
> have
> > immunity from currently applicable US jurisdiction - executive,
> legislative and
> > judicial - over ICANN, which does not change with oversight transition
> > process, and which is very dangerous and unacceptable to non US people.
> > Such immunity requires international incorporation of the ICANN, with
the
> > incorporating document clearly, legally, preserving, ICANN's current
> mandate
> > and working.... This incorporating document can be in form of a very
brief
> > treaty, laying our and legitimising (in international law) the mandate
and
> > work methods of ICANN (as they are) and further granting immunity from
> > host country jurisdictions.
> >
> > The text of such a short treaty document will require to be such that US
> > would accede to, and it can make sure that ICANN's status quo is
> protected...
> > There will be no way to change that status quo - believe me, there is a
> rule of
> > law in the international domain - unless US (and its allies) agrees to
> such a
> > change. And there is no reason that it will. Such an arrangement
protects
> the
> > ICANN's global governance role both from US's unilateral interference
> (from
> > which it is not protected right now) and of any other country,
including,
> the
> > very unlikely chance of all non US countries ganging up because still US
> will
> > have to agree to any change..... Now please tell me why and how this
> > arrangement is not a better protection from any undue interference with
> > ICANN's mandate and working than the current arrangement whereby (even
> > post transition) US's judicial, legislative and executive agencies can
any
> time
> > interfere with ICANN's working? No solution will be perfect, but trade
> offs
> > between different kinds have to be assessed, form the point of view of
> > people worldwide, and not just of the US and its allies.
> >
> > My article also gave a clear example.... Say, the US pharma industry
> brings up
> > a case against an Indian generic drug manufacturer, Sun Pharma, with the
> > gTLD .SuPha, in a US court alleging that the latter is compromising its
> patents
> > in its global generic drug business, a case which otherwise done not
hold
> > either in an Indian court or of those countries to which SunPharma sells
> its
> > drugs, and the US court orders seizure of all US based assets of
SunPharma
> > including its gTLD.
> > Accordingly, the US court orders ICANN to de-notify  .SuPha and the root
> > server maintainer to remove it from the root file. This is an extremely
> likely
> > scenario... I can give a thousand similar examples of various issues
that
> US
> > gov and US business can have with many entities of other countries,
> > whereby similar consequences can follow. Is this fair...? Is such a non
> > democratic system acceptable in this world in the 21st century? Why
should
> > non US actors, people and countries accept such a system? Do you have
any
> > preparation of defence against these very likely, in fact inevitable
> scenarios
> > (esp with new gTLDs) ?
> >
> > In the circumstance, how is an international incorporation for ICANN
with
> > host country immunities not better?
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > Roberto
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160327/6774bd44/attachment.html>