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

[McTim]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

>  While I cannot speak for Parminder:
>
>
<snip>


>   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?
>


I don't believe I asked for a utopian vision.  I simply questioned why
" One needs to propose under what  kind of arrangement will the new
internationalised ICANN get institutionalised and subsist.", and then asked
if the severing of the DoC contract with ICANN is not the next step in the
evolution of that realtionship.



>
>
>
>> 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?
>

which legitimacy issue?



>
>
>
>
>
>>  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...
>



Where would like to see ICANN HQ'ed?

Where is your "Internet-istan"?

-- 
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/20121206/9dcd3d43/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