[governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?

[Riaz K Tayob]

While I cannot speak for Parminder:
On 2012/12/06 03:38 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>     One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising
>     ICANN". That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to
>     present (and engage with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all
>     those, whom Riaz may call as "US exceptionalists" and I often call
>     as "US apologists", have never done here. Have they ever? IF they
>     have, please point me to it.
>
>
> Please see Drake's reply to you the last time we talked about this.  I 
> don't have a link however.

Drake has also had an evolution on these matters. Politically at least, 
I think we can go for Sapere Aude (we make up our own minds, of course 
always open to persuasion - especially if the facts change).

>
>
>     No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the
>     ICANN contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose
>     under what kind of arrangement will the new internationalised
>     ICANN get institutionalised and subsist.
>
>
>
> Why?  Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing 
> evolution?
>

Why does Parminder have to give a utopian vision for the future while 
others are precluded from this requirement? Where is the balance in that?

>     One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it
>     still be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities
>     would it have from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured?
>
>
> Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps 
> down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a 
> private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new 
> gTLD monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue.  Of course, 
> if ICANN became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might 
> be met, but none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN.
>

There is also disruptive evolution (see preceding comment). However, I 
cannot see how the legitimacy issue can be dealt with if even basic 
discussions (think Vint Cerf and Nick Gowing at the first IGF also) 
cannot be had. If I/we are contrary, then with balance I can say we are 
outnumbered, what are the others' excuses?

>
>     It is very central to the internationalisation issue that neither
>     the US executive nor its courts are able to interfere with ICANN's
>     decisions.
>
>
>
> It is central to your version of "internationalisation", not to all 
> versions.
>

And how exactly is this internationalisation when US domestic 
institutions dominate? Of course there is a matter of degree... and that 
can be run with... but there may be substantive differences in this 
commodious term...

> It would be enough for the moment if we could get everyone on the list 
> to stop top-posting and trim your mails, that would be a useful next step!
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121206/d6d31470/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t