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

[Pranesh Prakash]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2016-04-26 11:56:53 -0400]:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.
>
> It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be
> suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big
> a lift at that moment).

Perhaps it is no coincidence that a majority of the submissions from 
civil society organizations based in India to the ICG raised the issue 
of jurisdiction.

But in the final ICG report, there is no explanation (I know, I 
searched) as to why the jurisdiction-related concerns raised in those 
submissions (as part of WS1 and as part of the ICG's mandate) were 
deemed sufficiently unimportant so as not to merit discussion or 
reflection in the report.

What an utter farce.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160426/49dff107/signature.asc>