<div>Dear Lee,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The point I was raising is not the location per se but the nature of the entity : there is no way today to create a truly international structure, either for profit or non-profit. And it would make sense to have a global structure to handle such a global network.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To avoid confusion, let's distinguish clearly betwen the different layers of issues we are addressing in this important thread :</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) the regimes that should be applied to gTLDs and ccTLDs : similarities and differences</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) benefits and drawbacks of one root vs several interoperable ones (cf. Joe Baptista) ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>3) should the same entity(ies) handle both root management and general policy setting ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>4) the nature of institutions in charge of the respective functions : national NGO status with host country agreement, intergovernmental organization, a new, truly international and multi-stakeholder format, other ... ?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>5) the origins of legitimacy for the said organization(s) (ie : how they are created) : MoU with one or several governments, international Treaty, framework convention, self-established multi-stakeholder Charter ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>6) the physical location of the offices of these entities : single location or geographic distribution in multiple regions ? hosting by various entities (as the W3C) or in their own premisses ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for the physical location, Avri is of course right : it should be only the governance regime/framework that matters, not the location. Still, the present situation combines : a legitimacy coming from a MoU with a single government, a legal structure following the laws of a single country and, for a long time, a location in a single country. The symbolic dimension cannot be eluded.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Establishing a more distributed international presence (as ICANN initiated recently with Europe), getting some sort of host country agreement, and establishing a new charter/framework among more actors than one government alone are probably elements to consider in moving forward.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This of course does not reduce the pertinence of Milton's remark regarding accountability : how to guarantee accountability, enforceability and possibility of appeal at the international level ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you mentionned in a separate post, ime may not be ripe yet to revive the notion of a framework convention, but it would eventually be an appropriate way to discuss those interlinked issues together.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bertrand de La Chapelle</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>P.S. : as for the IMF and World Bank location in DC, you probably know, Lee, that the rule is that the headquarters of these institutions are located - per Charter - in the country that is the largest shareholder (in this case the US). But, knowing that the shares of all european countries combined represent more than the US, some actors have suggested in the past that the european union should pool its seats and ask for the two institutions to move their headquarters to Europe. It is not likely to happen for many reasons, as we all know, but the physical location of any international organization is clearly not neutral.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/1/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Lee McKnight</b> <<a href="mailto:LMcKnigh@syr.edu">LMcKnigh@syr.edu</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of course<br>the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
<br><br>There, we've solved the world's problems ; (<br><br>Lee<br><br>Prof. Lee W. McKnight<br>School of Information Studies<br>Syracuse University<br>+1-315-443-6891office<br>+1-315-278-4392 mobile<br><br>>>> <a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">
mueller@syr.edu</a> 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>><br><br>Canada?<br><br>>>> <a href="mailto:bortzmeyer@internatif.org">bortzmeyer@internatif.org</a> 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>><br>A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
<br>simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and<br>quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems<br>safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
<br>they have good Internet connectivity).<br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:
<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br>