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

[McTim]

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:08 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder <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.
>
>
> McTim, it is you who is advocating a particular kind on ICANN
> internationalism, and therefore you must tell us the road map, at least the
> outlines of it.... you cant vaguely refer to 'some email of Bill Drake' and
> not remember what was it about. That is as a strange a reply as I have ever
> got...
>


Perhaps you don't read all the mails, but conveniently, MM has just
delivered a similar missive so that I don't have to go searching for that
particular mail.  So I refer you to Milton's mail that he just sent:
 De-nationalisation..."*is not “US exceptionalism” but its opposite."*




>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  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?
>
>
> Because nothing free floats without some kind of anchorage in a
> polity...... But if you want to, you may describe your vision of a free
> floating ICANN giving some details and we can discuss it.
>


Isn't the ICANN community "polity" enough?

As for it being HQ'ed in a certain place, well if we reject the Boat idea
(or find an island that can be made free of a nation-state and buy that)
then as MM says :

*a.  ****If ICANN is incorporated as a private entity, it will have to be
in one jurisdiction. As jurisdictions go, there is nothing intrinsically
worse about the State of California than other jurisdictions. It may be
better than many others. Yes, this means that US jurisdiction has more
influence in some types of disputes than others. But special status for the
home jurisdiction would be true regardless of where it is incorporated. So
if Parminder or others would like to make a case for another state or
nation-state jurisdiction, let them do so. So far, no one has.*






>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> So, you are saying that your version of 'internationalised ICANN' will
> remain subject  to US jurisdiction. Well, as you might suspect, that is not
> internationalisation in my view. I cant see on what basis you call it
> internationalisation... I would call it 'phoney internationalisation'. As I
> have said often, one adverse decision by a US court on an ICANN policy or
> action, and this whole phoney thing will come unravelled. Why wait for it
> when we know it is around the corner.....
>


Milton's point b) is germaine here.

If you want a treaty, be careful what you ask for, you will most certainly
get it (and more).

A treaty is by far the worst option IMHO.

If you want it "internationalised" to the point of no nation-state laws
applying, then you have to put it in either Antarctica, the moon, an island
that can be declared independent, or on a ship.

What you seem to want is to move it to Geneva and make it an IGO, governed
by a treaty, hence my preference for a gradual evolution from the
status-quo.

-- 
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/20121207/1cbb8ae8/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