<div>Hi Parminder,<br><br>Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I agree that it is appropriate and necessary to critically examine the IANA
stewardship transition. I have read a number of articles documenting
legitimate criticisms of the transition from different stakeholder groups. Nonetheless,
I have not heard anyone say that the better solution would have been for ICANN not to
become more accountable, not to let the stewardship of the IANA functions
transition from the NTIA to the multistakeholder community. <br><br>But let’s leave
that aside for a moment. There is something in your article that I wanted to pick up upon, and I think it's important. You mention the delegation of .xxx and say it is being
challenged in US courts for “for allegedly violating competition law.” Okay… Can you please explain to me your problem with this? .xxx is operated by ICM Registry, a company incorporated
in the United States. If ICM has violated US antitrust laws, it is
subject to the US legal system because ICM is incorporated in the United States,
not because ICANN is headquartered in the United States. Likewise, for your
example of the generic drugs company, if they’re infringing upon someone else’s
IP, I’m sure they’ll be sued in whatever jurisdiction the registry for “.genericdrugs”
can be located within. It doesn’t stand to reason to me that a dispute between
two private parties, one of which is not based in and does not do business in
the United States, is going to be resolved in a US court. Let’s inverse the
scenario. Say ICANN was headquartered in India. A generic American drugs
company operates “.genericdrugs” and is sued by, say, a Spanish competitor.
Would they really file the lawsuit in India? Or would they file it in the
United States, where the drugs company has its assets? <br></div><div><br></div><div>I think it is useful to remember what the IANA transition was all about. It
was about empowering the global, multistakeholder community to oversee the
activities carried out by ICANN. It was not about making sure ICANN was not
subject to US law. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Finally, maybe it's the realist in me, but I’d like to note that attempting to
get “jurisdictional immunities as available to other global governance bodies
like those of the UN” (to quote your article) sounds very time consuming and highly resource intensive. I am just trying to think how we might go about that? So we’d need 160+
sovereign states to sign an international treaty? You want established a “special
digital bench of the International Court of Justice” and new “international
laws”? And we – the multistakeholder community – would write them? Who/what gives
us that authority? I have not been following the IANA transition from the very
beginning, but I will venture to guess that such an option was never on the
table… that said, if I am mistaken and there was a missed opportunity to embark
upon such an ambitious project, feel free to set the record straight… ;-)<br><br>Thanks again for starting this conversation and sharing your Op-Ed. It's good to be able to have this dialogue. </div><div><div><br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user "><div>Ayden Férdeline<br></div><div><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline" title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline">linkedin.com/in/ferdeline</a><br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Is the Internet Really Free of US Control?<br></div><div>Local Time: 17 October 2016 3:54 PM<br></div><div>UTC Time: 17 October 2016 14:54<br></div><div>From: m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk<br></div><div>To: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>, governance@lists.igcaucus.org <governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><p>Dear Parminder<br></p><p>Thanks for the thumbs-up regarding the <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/hri">HRI series on openDemocracy</a>.
And, indeed, debate and action are not always the same thing. But
action and attitudes can be influenced by debates that take
internal, expert-driven issues out into the wider world. And as
the world is increasingly online, activists (and academics) and
policymakers (and designers) cannot any more expect public fora to
be ready and waiting for topics that are as arcane as they are
deeply political, and politicized. <br></p><p>To that end, talk is not cheap, and actions do speak as loudly as
words.<br></p><p>Seeing this issue discussed in a public forum, and not
surprisingly I am advocating this particular one given the
high-quality contributions from people who are on these lists, and
who are re also active in a range of other networks (e.g.
scholarly, policy-based, activist), is becoming increasingly
needed. Politicians are making decisions based on a lack of access
to the nuances of these issues, to put it lightly.<br></p><p>Might I also have that our students in universities are becoming
increasingly engaged in the implications of a range of internet
governance decisions and interventions by all stakeholders....
they are seldom addressed in these circles even as they constitute
the leaders of tomorrow.<br></p><p>Thanks to everyone on this series for committing to bringing
these debates out into the open! <br></p><p>best<br></p><p>MF<br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2016 15:05, parminder wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><p><br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 17 October 2016 07:16 PM,
Marianne Franklin wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><p>Dear Parminder, Others (am also copying in the IRPC list). <br></p><p>There is clearly still lots to debate, <br></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes Marianne, but the political moment of reckoning does not wait
for all debates to conclude - debates that has now been happening
for more than 10 years. The jurisdiction question is being
considered formally "right now" in the transition process, as it
is called, In a few months it will be formally declared that the
global multi stakeholder community - which is supposed to includes
me and you, and all the debators -- have concluded by full or
rough consensus that the current jurisdictional status remains the
best bet for ICANN. The 'decision' will be touted in our name. IGC
11 years ago took a political position in the middle of debates -
political activism requires that. 11 years hence the debates
cannot be less mature then they were before - I am just wondering,
what happened meanwhile... Well, isnt that too an important
question by itself to ask, and explore, for activists and
academics alike. Just clarifying what was the accent of my
posting. Meanwhile, yes, more debates and articles and comments
continue to remain welcome, and shd keep coming. But maybe, civil
society's job includes some political role too!<br></div><div><br></div><div>Meanwhile I do recommend to everyone to read this excellent series
of IG related articles published in OpenDemocracy and coordinated
by Marianne. <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
. Debates, academic exercises, and political action must all go
together. <br></div><div><br></div><div>best regards<br></div><div><br></div><div>parminder <br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><p>on the macro level of past and future ownership and control
of the strategically important aspects of the internet's
infrastructure (content being another matter altogether). To
date the debates about ICANN, positions for/against and all
other shades, have occurred on lists with well informed, and
committed participants. <br></p><p>To date there is little out there for an informed, wider
public. This is why comments on the <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction-taboo-topic-at-icann">Prakash
piece</a>, or indeed others on this page that may relate to
the spectrum of issues that keeps all these lists alive and
actively arriving in our in=boxes, would help inform that
wider audience. <br></p><p>It is a key reason why I have been working with openDemocracy
to present these issues to a wider readership so all comments
welcome to the ICANN piece. <br></p><p>Other articles, including a critical analysis of a UK-based
initiative for digital rights by Paul Bernal available at <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>.
<br></p><p>warm wishes<br></p><p>MF<br></p><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2016 14:07, parminder
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><p><br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 17 October 2016 05:20
PM, Marianne Franklin wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><p>Dear Parminder<br></p><p>Thanks for sending over this piece in a growing
literature on ICANN and it future. <br></p><p>Just to note that Pranesh's less than celebratory
analysis for the ICANN transition has been published on
the openDemocracy series, Human Rights and the Internet,
at <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction-taboo-topic-at-icann" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction-taboo-topic-at-icann</a>.
<br></p></blockquote><div>Thanks Marianne,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes, absolutely not at all celebratory! I had read it a few
months back, and should have had it in my mind when I made
that comment. But then, isnt it surprising that when two of
the very few CS groups in India consider that not much has
happened with the so called 'transition' in terms of loosening
of US control over ICANN, there is simply no murmurs in the CS
community globally to actually take this issue up - in a
political manner, like making a statement and so on. I may
repeat what I have said so many tomes earlier - in all the
multistakeholder meetings that I saw organised in India in the
transition processes it was always concluded that there are
two key issues to sort out - an 'external' oversight
mechanism, and jurisdiction issue. What we have is an
oversight which is hardly external, and the jurisdiction issue
is being completely buried. But still it seems that everyone
-- more or less -- is just celebrating the 'transition' with
no critical take being adopted. <br></div><div><br></div><div>As Pranesh's article points out, seeking a host country
agreement or in other words jurisdictional immunity for ICANN
from the US was the demand of Internet Governance Caucus in
2005. The all round social- political importance of the domain
name system has only greatly enhanced in the last 10 years,
and so the US's jurisdictional control over it should be ever
less acceptable -- but why is no major civil society group
today able to get up and say the same thing which IGC said and
asked for in 2005? Especially when a process is actually
taking place which is formally examining the jurisdiction
question. I sometimes participate in that ICANN WG on
jurisdiction, where every effort is on to bury this question -
and i finds almost no civil society voice there. <br></div><div><br></div><div>People here may want to ponder this question - has the US
stranglehold on the IG discourse actually tightened since then
- meaning WSIS in 2005? Or perhaps there could be other
reasons, which I did not think of, and others can enlighten me
on. (not addressed to you Marianne :), it is general)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Parminder <br></div><div><br></div><div>PS: Excuse me to cc this to IGC list, where a similar
discussion is on... Those who respond may exercise discretion
whether they want to respond to both elists or one of them. <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><p><br></p><p>best <br></p><p>MF<br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/10/2016 15:48, parminder
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="moz-forward-container"><div><br></div><div>-------- Forwarded Message --------
<br></div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" class="moz-email-headers-table"><tbody><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject: <br></th><td>Is the Internet Really Free of US Control?<br></td></tr><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: <br></th><td>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:11:26 +0530<br></td></tr><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: <br></th><td>parminder <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><parminder@itforchange.net></a><br></td></tr><tr><th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: <br></th><td><a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>,
< <" bestbits\""@lists.bestbits.net><br></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br></div><div><br></div><p><span class="font" style="font-family:Verdana">Hi All</span><br></p><p><span class="font" style="font-family:Verdana">I wrote this commentary piece in
the Economic and Political Weekly of India on
ICANN's oversight transition. For such an important
and multi-faceted event, it is surprising that I
have come across no article that is other than
absolutely celebratory about it, and catches
properly the different nuances that are involved.
Such a monochromatic discourse in the global IG
space is not a good indication. There is an especial
lack of views from a progressive and social justice
perspective, and from the geopolitical South, both
of which I have tried to catch in this brief
article. </span><br></p><p><br></p><h1 style="font-weight: normal" class="western"><b><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size">Internet
Governance: Is the Internet Really Free of US
Control?</span></b><br></h1><p>"The recent decision of the United States government
to cede its control over the internet’s naming and
addressing system to the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a US-based
international non-profit body, is heralded as a
significant step towards the globalisation of
internet’s core infrastructure. But with ICANN having
no special jurisdictional immunity and subject to the
whims of the judicial and legislative branches of the
US government as well as many of its executive
agencies, the decision seems more symbolic than
meaningful."<br></p><p><a href="http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/42/web-exclusives/internet-governance.html" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/42/web-exclusives/internet-governance.html</a><br></p><div>Comments are welcome.<br></div><div>parminder <br></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></pre></blockquote><div><br></div><pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 207 9197072
<a href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk></a>
@GloComm
<a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a>
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition )
<a href="http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">www.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
@netrights
Special Series Editor, Human Rights and the Internet
<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
Digital Dilemmas: Power, Resistance and the Internet (Oxford University Press)
<a href="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#</a>
Championing Human Rights on the Internet (I-VI)
<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough</a>
“What does (the Study of) World Politics Sound Like?”
co-authored with Matt Davies in World Politics and Popular Culture: Theories, Methods, Pedagogies
<a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/</a><br></pre></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 207 9197072
<a href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk></a>
@GloComm
<a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a>
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition )
<a href="http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">www.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
@netrights
Special Series Editor, Human Rights and the Internet
<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
Digital Dilemmas: Power, Resistance and the Internet (Oxford University Press)
<a href="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#</a>
Championing Human Rights on the Internet (I-VI)
<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough</a>
“What does (the Study of) World Politics Sound Like?”
co-authored with Matt Davies in World Politics and Popular Culture: Theories, Methods, Pedagogies
<a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/</a><br></pre></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 207 9197072
<a href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk></a>
@GloComm
<a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a>
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition )
<a href="http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">www.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
@netrights
Special Series Editor, Human Rights and the Internet
<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
Digital Dilemmas: Power, Resistance and the Internet (Oxford University Press)
<a href="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#</a>
Championing Human Rights on the Internet (I-VI)
<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough</a>
“What does (the Study of) World Politics Sound Like?”
co-authored with Matt Davies in World Politics and Popular Culture: Theories, Methods, Pedagogies
<a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/</a><br></pre></blockquote><div><br></div>