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

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 16:44:06 UTC 2016

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 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.

I don't think it was a coincidence at all, it seemed to be a concerted
effort on your part, right?

Still, that is irrelevant.

> 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.

I think you are being disingenous here, you know full well the
conditions on the outcome of the process set by DoC.

Insisting on changing jurisdiction would have scuttled the entire transition.

Or was that your goal?


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the At-Large mailing list