[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

[Mawaki Chango]

Brother Carlos,

I wish we had this earlier, for it would've made the job easier for some of
us who could have just submitted "we endorse the Brazilian government's
comment" as our comment.

I particularly appreciate the BR gov clear argument about legal status and
jurisdiction, including the stated purposes of such argument. The way ICANN
has been operating has always created a sense of unease wrt governments'
full participation, something that has to do with a sense of slippery slope
toward government privatization, whether intended or an afterthought (I
once personally witnessed within ICANN a US allied government rep from the
Pacific cast a vote that was in contradiction with the law in her country.)
If multi-stakeholder were to mean something, the meaning of the term
"private" in this context should be clearly differentiated from that of
saying, for instance, "private (profit driven) corporation"* and should
rather clearly, fully and once for all in practice mean "public-benefit
(private) corporation."

Furthermore, maybe "in their respective roles" should just mean that every
group come as who they are at first (in continuation/line with their
defining functions) and then enter a dialog that is open and plural across
stakeholder groups, where all ideas will be argued and heard for their
merits (intellectual, operational, yes political, etc. etc.) This may still
happen without governments needing to behave as private companies or
non-governmental actors claiming to fulfill governments' functions.

Ok let me just stop here and say I, for whatever this may be worth, approve
of BR gov message. (Never mind my ill advised, additional drift on
multistakeholderism.) A systematic assessment of the pluses and minuses of
each potential candidate jurisdictions for ICANN mission and global
ownership is a must to fully complete the goals of its transition.

Fraternal regards

(*) Note, 1) such can evidently be for profit but not necessarily: one may
be a nonprofit private entity and still be driven by for profit interests,
as their processes may be dominated by for profit participants. 2) I do
understand how the term "private" is often used by US based stakeholders in
this context, as to mean NONgovernmental. While there is that constant risk
of confusion with the other meaning of "private" (one may say 'private' is
tainted by the for profit corporate use), there is on the other hand the
fact that the term "nongovernmental" is already... tainted by the bunch of
civil society ;) So tainted for tainted, the US led in that by USG has
favored the use of the term "private." Doesn't this ring a bell?
'International,' 'multilateral' and (even) 'democratic' tainted by
'intergovernmental' practices? So let's stay away from those and find
something as "private" as meant above but at the same time plural and that
gave 'multistakeholderism'? Again, please get back to the central message
above and never mind my extra drift. Just store that in the Sunday morning
hermeneutics drawer.

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On Jun 6, 2015 10:49 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached
> please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on June 03,
> 2015, in response to the call for public comments on the
> CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal.
>
> I generally agree with the comments.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150607/811aeacf/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