[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

Sun Dec 1 07:52:05 EST 2013

Suresh,

I don't know why but, based upon the reading of some of your previous messages, I had the impression you could do that type of answer. Aren't these 12 words a little antagonistic, and with no argument at all?

Could you elaborate 
- doubt
- work far better

And what's immediately wrong with 
a trustworthy international
jurisdiction
??

Thanks
JC

Le 1 déc. 2013 à 12:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you 
> 
> --srs (htc one x)
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
> Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM
> 
> The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I
> particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international
> jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to
> be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet
> governance.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert 
> 
> 
> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
> > > Deirdre
> > 
> > Deirdre/ All
> > 
> > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, 
> > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress
> > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and
> > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is
> > key...
> > 
> > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of
> > ICANN'
> > 
> > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.
> > 
> > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root
> > file.
> > 
> > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that
> > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising'
> > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be
> > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body
> > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is
> > needed.
> > 
> > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a)
> > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant
> > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be
> > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by
> > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way
> > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not
> > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by
> > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but
> > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an
> > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post
> > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within
> > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an
> > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal
> > is made to it through a due process.
> > 
> > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to
> > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed
> > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any)
> > 
> > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is
> > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the
> > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to
> > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an
> > international jurisdiction.
> > 
> > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the 
> > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject
> > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to
> > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this
> > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of
> > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for
> > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree
> > on one.
> > 
> > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas
> > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we
> > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of 
> > alternatives.
> > 
> > parminder
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/12512078/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