[At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
pranesh at cis-india.org
Tue Apr 26 18:36:26 UTC 2016
Your response goes off on a tangent, doesn't address the points I've
raised in my e-mail, and shows that you are unable to decide whether the
IGF has made progress ("the progress made by the groups you mentioned":
indicates you believe progress has been made) or not ("if IGF was
delivering properly": indicating it has not).
My simple point, which you have not refuted, is that a treaty can be a
basis for or can recognize a multistakeholder organization (e.g., the ILO).
At any rate, there have been calls for a long while for changing the
current legal structure of ICANN. Of course, people on this list are
liable to view these as not "important":
Here are some demands from the civil society caucus (IGC) at WSIS in 2005:
> “ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community.
> "ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules. …
> "It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed [Internet Governance] Forum."
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the At-Large