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

Roberto Gaetano roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 9 14:34:32 UTC 2016


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....


It was my intention not to further comment to this thread, that is bringing us nowhere, because we disagree, and are both unable to convince the other party.

So, we are all losing time.

However, since you call me directly in your message, I will provide a *last* reply.


Treaties are done by governments, not civil society. We are the internet user community, governments are in the GAC.

If you believe it is an easy thing to do, please go ahead and do it. As I told you already, go and convince governments, and come back with something we can work on that is not just fluff – or ether.

Since you are insisting in not doing that, I matured the convincement that you are well aware that what you propose will not be supported by governments, and you are just playing politics: words, that go nowhere.

Actually, did you propose this to the GAC, which would be the appropriate forum? If yes, what was the answer? If no, why not?

If I see a meaningful draft, endorsed by a substantial number of governments, I will apologize to you and collaborate. Until I do not see this, I will remain of my opinion, that you are proposing something that is unfeasible.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160409/90f3c437/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list