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

[Norbert Bollow]

William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Similarly, the comment about ICANN being subject to multiple
> jurisdictions probably wasn’t a thought out proposal for a new and
> more complex legal architecture

I agree that it probably wasn't thought out at all, and if there is no
concrete proposal anywhere, and no-one has strong interest in working
out the specifics on how the idea could be implemented in a way that
actually solves any problems (as opposed to changing the current
situation of inheriting the problems of one jurisdiction into one where
we don't only create additional problems from mixing jurisdictions but
also inherit all the problems of multiple jurisdictions - Jovan has IMO
made a very good point that increasing the number of jurisidctions
whose requirements all have to be satisfied is probably not a good
strategy for maximizing public interest benefits from sharing digital
goods) we can simply ignore this proposal and look for better ideas.

I'm glad that we had a bit of discussion of this idea here now, but from
my perspective, we have discussed this particular idea sufficiently now
and can move on.

(When I brought up that Fadi had talked about this, my context was that
I claim that the jurisdiction aspect of ICANN internationalization /
transnationalization / whateverization is neither easy to solve nor
unimportant.)  

> as much as a comment about having different offices in different
> places.

In the context in which the comment was made, it was clearly intended to
communicate willingness, even eagerness, for the concerns about ICANN
being subject to US (California) jurisdiction to be addressed; it was
presented as a step beyond having offices in different places.

Greetings,
Norbert

P.S. Maybe it would be good to get back to the original purpose of this
thread, to try to reach consensus around some statement that could be
based on http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives -
right now there is a version of the text there which avoids the word
"internationalization" speaking instead of "desired transition of ICANN
and IANA away from its links to the USG and towards a global INGO
status." Now I believe that there have been concerns raised also about
the "INGO status" wording. So how could the draft be further improved?

-------------- 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