[governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence"

Mon Oct 17 16:11:08 EDT 2005

HI Joe,

Would have appreciated being disagreed to without labelling it "nonsense". I
was suggesting this only as a way to try to help IG caucus discussions on
"host country agreement" as defined in WGIG and the IG coordinators. 

Please see my other remarks in other emails, where I state EXACTLY what you
state below. I am quite aware of the issue of true "control" as such, and
also there are different issues of "oversight" as such, involved when we
speak about existing TLDs, the root oversight, the creation of new TLDs, the
"potential" removal of ccTLDs, etc.  

BTW, it is not WSIS who should bypass as you suggest, but it would be
keyplayers calling for bypass and another solution. WSIS is merely a UN
conference of multistakeholders and not an organ.

If you do read my postings, you would have seen that I did also indicate the
reasonableness of the people operating the root servers and how there may be
another way out to get a bottom up solution to this issue. I also indicated
if we had focused on gettting the facts right, we could have avoided the
"emotiveness" at WSIS.  Lee McKnight also pointed this out and therefore
suggested different viewpoints from the various constituents, e.g. rootops
operators, etc and another from the IG or the likes of Adam, Jeanette and
Norbert may be the only way forward.

Please I am trying to see if we can focus on getting someway forward for IG
to make some contributions to guide the WSIS discussions along. Of course,
we could also suggest a non-WSIS solution. 

Either way, I do welcome criticisms on my point of view, but I think we can
work on being cordial so we can also work on getting some concrete work done
rather being at deadlocks ourselves! (PS-I notice, many people don't read
each others emails before responding.)

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:55 PM
To: Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence"

Laina - your approach is nonsense.  Why negotiate with people who have no
control over root infrastructure.  The WSIS should bypass the institutions
and go directly to the points of control - i.e. the root operators
themselves.

Indeed I hink the root operators world wide are ready to negotiate some
contractual provisions.  The recent move of F root server operator Paul
Vixie to support an alternative root being the orsn www.orsn.org is
indicative they can be approached and reasoned with.

At this time the Internets root infrastructure - which I remind all of you
IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT - is the point of control.  Not the United States
government nor ICANN nor IANA.  Deal with the source - not the secondary
issues.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the United
States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593

Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
Public-Root Discussion Forum:
http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> Thanks Jovan for your input. Agreed on the immunities issue. I do 
> however understand that there are varying degrees of immunity. When I 
> worked at INTELSAT, I had a G4 status "international civil servant" 
> which gave me immunity from taxes but not all the other immunities 
> that UN officials and country diplomats had.
>
> So we need to focus on what problem we are trying to solve. I believe 
> the issue is not to have ICANN be accountable and under the 
> instruction unilaterally from the USG.
>
> So my question what is the alternative term to "host country agreement"
> which will lead us to what we are looking for, and what is the term 
> which will be understood by USG for implementation to change ICANN 
> from 501(c) California not for profit to more of an "international
organisation".
>
> Laina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan 
> Kurbalija
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:08 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence"
>
> Here are a few comments on the latest discussion....
>
>
> Modalities about a host country agreement can vary. The general trend 
> is towards the reduction of immunities in international affairs. The 
> main difference, when it comes to immunity, is between iure gestionis 
> (private acts of the entity) and iure imperii (the name was chosen 
> with states in mind - the function of the state in exercising its 
> sovereign power; within the current context we can "translate" this to 
> a particular entity's realisation of its core functions).
>
> Let me bring this difference closer to our discussion. An 
> internationalised ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as 
> well as directors of its
> Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers 
> - a host government would not be able to use legal tools to question 
> ICANN's decision on rote zone file, for example, or to overrule this 
> decision (under iure imperii). But when it comes to other acts - 
> contracts, employment arrangements, etc., ICANN would still have to 
> observe national law (iure gestionis).
>
> I personally support the legal school of though that advocates a lower 
> level of immunities. Diplomats and international civil servants should 
> be shielded in performing their professional functions (immunity for 
> activities), but they should not have broad and blanket immunity. In 
> practice, immunity has already been reduced. Most diplomats are 
> responsible and take care to observe local laws (one obligation of the 
> Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations!).
>
> All in all, "host country agreement" modalities can be adjusted to 
> particular needs/circumstances.
>
> When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of 
> "geostrategic innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, 
> Alex Sceberras Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of 
> Malta). Among the candidates for the title of the most "innocent" 
> states are Finland, Austria, Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa 
> Rica, Switzerland, pacific island states, etc.
>
> Jovan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance