<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">All.<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The statement from US gov is welcome,
and is a step in the right direction. One looks forward to hear
more
details.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">It was always evident that when Fadi
went to Brasilia to meet President Rousseff, he was carrying a
message with some substance, if not fully specified. That alone
would have deterred the
President from her path to seek strong specific global response to
the NSA
outrage, which path seemed to go towards the UN. And deter it did.
Meanwhile, as a quid pro quo, US had to
made good its promise, and we see it unfolding now.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There always was this big gift wrapped
box on the table – the US/ICANN offer regarding oversight
liberalization. It has however been unclear what is inside the box
–
how big and substantial is the 'gift'. In the last few weeks, with
US
and ICANN both talking about lowering expectations from the
NetMundial, one had begun to despair that it may not be worth
peeping
into the box at all, but this declaration raises some hopes again.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There are two important caveats
though.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">One, we know that the global outrage
following Snowden's revelation, which has consolidated into a new
level of
awareness about global IG issues, and need for democratizing
global IG, has had
little to do with ICANN oversight. And it had all to do with other
issues of control of the global Internet – which I listed in
an earlier email, like the monopolistic or oligopolistic US based
Internet companies,
application of US law globally, and so on. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As Post-Snowdon damage control, US has
chosen just the right time and person to present the oversight
liberalization gift to – Rousseff's presidency. Brazil is one of
the most important geo-political players on the IG stage, and
Rousseff
would love to have such a big gift related to the oversight of the
most fascinating phenomenon of current times, the Internet, from
the
most powerful government of the world. It looks so good to get it,
especially just a few
months before the elections, where it can be put to some use. The
problem however is, the gift may not
be so alluring for Brazilian Presidency to forget the original
issue
which raised Brazil's heckles, and made the global community pose
trust in it to lead the post-Snowden clean-up. US will be betting
that this is what would happen. And I hope and trust the very
well-respected and wise Brazilian establishment to not fall into
the
trap for a short term gain, which would undermine its long
term global leadership in this area. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In any case, civil society groups that
we work with will do their best that such over-shadowing of key
global Internet governance issues, that the Brazil meeting
promised
to the global community, does not happen. It plans to write to the
Brazilian government in this regard, and also raise the issue
among
Brazilian NGOs and the local as well as international
media.NEtMundial must address non ICANN global IG issues at least
on par with ICANN issues, if not more centrally. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Secondly, with regard to ICANN itself,
the fact that ICANN is subject to US law is even more significant
that NTIA's role in signing the root file of the Internet. The
problem with NTIAs role was not whether it would routinely
interfere
with ICANN decisions, which it was careful enough to almost never
do.
It was the fact that the root of the Internet was under the
control
of US government, a control that could be misused at relatively
extra-ordinary times, like a war, or other less dramatic foreign
policy 'situations'. Nothing has changed in that regard. ICANN as
a
US non profit still remains fully subject to US laws, including
such that
are used in service of foreign policy imperatives.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">One such law is the<span
style="background: transparent">
Foreign Assets Control regulations, whereby </span>any foreign
asset in the
US can be seized at any time, given the Executive's satisfaction
of certain conditions. US corporations, and that includes
ICANN can be barred from having any relationship with any entity
in
the country that this law may pick on for a larger number of
possible reasons. There are also many other legal routes whereby
ICANN can be
legally instructed to disable entries on the root file, for
instance, by a US court with regard to the top level domain of a
generic drugs company which is
found to be in repeated violation of US intellectual property
laws.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In the circumstances, NTIA ceding its
formal role of signing any root changes while having a significant
symbolic significance, may not mean so much in real terms as it
may
appear at the first blush. Ceding the root signing authority must
be accompanied with
incorporation of ICANN as an international entity, under
international law, with all its operations having complete
immunity
from US laws. This is the important part, and there seems to be no
willingness at present to do so.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">parminder</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 15 March 2014 03:36 PM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D88B999B-27B0-4C14-8A7A-8344CBA75222@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Nigel Hickson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nigel.hickson@icann.org"><nigel.hickson@icann.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">...
I hope and trust that the US announcement on IANA and the High Level
Meeting in Brazil will not signal the end of the dialogue. I, although
with some background on Internet Governance, have found the dialogue, and
the contribution of some of our leading thinkers on IG matters, to be of
real utility. I even feel confident of explaining IANA down the pub!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If I am not mistaken, the USG announcement regarding IANA means that not only
will the dialogue continue, but in addition, it now has a higher potential for
outcomes that become reality.
As Ali noted in an earlier post - "Be careful what you wish for"...
:-)
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>