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

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Sat Apr 9 18:51:45 UTC 2016


I'm a grassroots guy trying to find a way for the Net to address the 
needs of my neighborhood. And a lot of this global stuff goes over my 
head. But if the GAC were to move ahead on a treaty, I suspect many of 
us would say "Hey! This is supposed to be a bottom up process. The 
governments pushing a treaty, no way, top-down, boo."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up, 
and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in 
his concerns about gTLD governance.)

But I'm not in love with the idea of a traditional treaty organization. 
Perhaps we could address the issues raised in a creative manner, break 
with tradition and fashion a multi-stakeholder treaty. For a start, 
perhaps we could present the states with an outline of what the At-Large 
sees as a suitable outcome, solicit their thoughts, while suggesting 
that the solution should include a continuing role for the At-Large. And 
see what they draft.


Tom Lowenhaupt

On 4/9/2016 10:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Parminder:
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160409/e01f1402/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list