[At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
Seth M Reiss
seth.reiss at lex-ip.com
Sat Apr 9 19:06:53 UTC 2016
I believe treaties are, by definition and tradition, between sovereign
governments. Individuals would not have power to bind governments in a
relationship. Individuals could bind one another in an international
agreement, but how to get everyone who uses the Internet to agree on an
international agreement? Click "I agree" each time you use the Internet J
From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:52 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano; 'parminder'
Cc: Tom lowenhaupt at google; 'At-Large Worldwide'
Subject: Re: [At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away
from the US government?
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.
On 4/9/2016 10:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
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
So, we are all losing time.
However, since you call me directly in your message, I will provide a *last*
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
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large