<div dir="ltr">Parminder,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
<br>
<div>On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM,
Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Some concepts are too complex to force them into a
single word.
<div>Deirdre</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Deirdre/ All<br>
<br>
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...<br>
<br>
I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of
ICANN'<br>
<br>
1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.<br>
<br>
2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the
root file.<br>
<br>
It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that
US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising'
role</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Actually not true. We have heard on this list that there are governments who are comfortable with this role, but they will only speak of this in private, but that is not who you need to convince. I think there are a lot of biz folk who are happy with the status quo of #2. </div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
..... 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. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Actually the question that must precede the above is: "Does this auth role need to be filled". In other words, can we trust IANA to do their job according to their own processes (which is what NTIA looks at).</div>
<div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
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).</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia. Changing the IP address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FYI, the ICANN Board ALREADY decides on new gTLDs and redelegations, so adding less important like changes to glue records should be non-controversial.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to
shed its oversight role.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We can certainly ask. but they take this responsibility very seriously, so they may not accede to the request.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> What should further be done can be
discussed along the above three lines (others may add more options
if any)<br>
<br>
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. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>If we can do point #2, then it may be easier to do point #1. I don't think we should try to do both. Let's work on continued evolution, not revolution.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>and Singapore law and Turkish law and the laws of other nations where there are offices.</div><div><br></div><div>Karl's point re: contracts is a valid one. How would you address that?</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
ICANN needs to be made subject to
international law and jurisdiction.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Is it not already? Aren't we all?</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</div></div>