<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html><head></head><body><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"><div>I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you </div><div><br></div><div>--srs (htc one x) </div><br><div id="htc_header">----- Reply message -----<br>From: "Norbert Bollow" <nb@bollow.ch><br>To: <governance@lists.igcaucus.org><br>Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance<br>Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM</div></div><br><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I
particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international
jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to
be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet
governance.
Greetings,
Norbert
Parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
> > Deirdre
>
> Deirdre/ All
>
> Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However,
> there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress
> in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and
> make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is
> key...
>
> I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of
> ICANN'
>
> 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.
>
> 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root
> file.
>
> It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that
> US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising'
> role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be
> exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body
> to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is
> needed.
>
> A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a)
> above is the best option. Some others think that every significant
> decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be
> subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by
> a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way
> would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not
> necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by
> US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but
> all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an
> international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post
> facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within
> clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an
> appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal
> is made to it through a due process.
>
> Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to
> shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed
> along the above three lines (others may add more options if any)
>
> Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is
> easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the
> jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to
> international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an
> international jurisdiction.
>
> Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the
> principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject
> to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to
> international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this
> principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of
> how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for
> ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree
> on one.
>
> A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas
> we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we
> do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of
> alternatives.
>
> parminder
</pre></body></html>