<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Carlos<br>
<br>
I very much agree with Brazil's position and congratulate it for
it. BTW, India has also made somewhat similar comments. The key
points of agreement are on what are two most important issues -
need for international jurisdiction, and accountability to the
larger global public rather than just the groups which are
currently closely engaged with ICANN, which can be called as
'external accountability' as against 'internal accountability'.<br>
<br>
Having agreed with Brazil's position, I must state that the issues
that Brazil is raising now have always been clear, and are the
basic ones in the oversight transition process. It has been
equally obvious, almost right from the start, but at least very
soon after, that these key issues will be ignored. It was
therefore important to push these issues right to the front, and
make it clear that these are non negotiable, and also gather
support among other groups for this position. <br>
<br>
What I find strange among the key groups/ orgs that can be
expected to come from a 'progressive' standpoint - key
governments, including I would have hoped the EU, but certainly
the larger developing ones, and key civil society groups, is that
they have been so shy to say upfront what is indeed non negotiable
that an impression is allowed to go around that while there is
indeed some limited discontent, and any such process would have
some, there is a level of general agreement being built going
forward. Such shyness or reticence among 'progressive' actors does
the cause a lot of harm. How else could the process, after having
been listening </font>(or perhaps not) <font face="Verdana">to
all key actors during the WG process, still come up with the
current proposal. One advisor to the process has publicly claimed
that most advisers considered 'jurisdiction' as a key issue, and
one can be sure that the countries that are now making statements
on this issue would have done the same in the WG process. How then
does the proposal put up for comments make no mention of
jurisdiction issue at all, nor of external accountability? <br>
<br>
The answer is simple: the process is rigged to produce outcomes
that satisfy US government (even beyond the 4 initial conditions
that it laid - do note, continued US jurisdiction is not one of
them) and, as a secondary complicit group, the ICANN plus
insiders, who have varying shades of loyalty to the ICANN system,
but when push comes to shove they are excepted to all agree on
structural issues and work as one. There simply can be no other
outcome. One does not need to wait till September to know this.<br>
<br>
There is no question that the issue of US jurisdictional immunity
(only possible through incorporation of ICANN under international
law) will be considered in the right earnest. In fact, I dont see
even opening up of the issue of 'external accountability'. So, the
die is more or less cast. <br>
<br>
Somewhat oddly, while clearly asking for immunity from US
jurisdiction at several places in their response document, Brazil
government is still shy to say the obvious, that this is possible
only under international law, which can only be written by a due
international process. Or do the Brazilians know of some other
manner in which immunity from jurisdiction from country of
incorporation can be obtained? One can well take a broad
multi-stakeholder approach to evolve a basic charter for the
ICANN, but to make it international law it has to follow due
process. In default, it can never provide what Brazil government
seeks in numerous places in the document. Of course they know it,
but the shyness and reticence - maybe still a NetMundial hangover
- in inexplicable. I hope Brazil gov clarifies its position in
this regard, or anyone else who understands their current thinking
might do it. <br>
<br>
This thing has to go to WSIS plus 10, whose negotiations start
this month. It is no use to bungle once again and wait too long
till after the WSIS plus 10 opportunity is also lost. One has to
gather support from key nations, including the EU... While some
progress could perhaps be forced at WSIS plus, it may not be so
easy, for so long have various actors been all over the place that
putting the act together in this short period can be extremely
difficult. <br>
<br>
In any case, US would not give way easily, especially since it has
begun believing for quite some time now, certainly over the last
year, that it has got itself into a good position and successfully
divided the opposition, into a hopeless mess. So while one must
try to get what one can at WSIS plus 10, the rest would need to be
forced through developing coalitions of digital economic and
political power which alone can make US come to the global
negotiation table. Currently, it simply does not have enough
incentive to do it.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 07 June 2015 04:18 AM, Carlos
A. Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached
please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on June 03,
2015, in response to the call for public comments on the
CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal.
I generally agree with the comments.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>