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

[parminder]

On Sunday 07 June 2015 02:28 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Mawaki/ Carlos

I am happy to assist you to seek support for this position in civil
society. Perhaps IGC can endorse it. Further, we can collect names of
those who separately would like to endorse it.

> I particularly appreciate the BR gov clear argument about legal status
> and jurisdiction, including the stated purposes of such argument.
>

The argument that US courts overruling ICANN decision (something that is
inescapable, and will certainly happen sooner or later) is 'the' key
problem and issue in oversight transition and that such an eventuality
would make a mockery of ICANN as a global governance body, has regularly
been made on this list - along with examples. But good to be waking up
to it even if only when we are fully on the brink - but still, better
late than never.

This issue is indeed fully unsolvable in the current process and in the
current 'paradigm'  - it would be good to also clearly see and
understand this further fact. And there from begin doing what needs to
be done. It is not useful to always wait for arriving on the brink and
then realising. Just wastes a lot of time, and time is power in what is
a fast concretizing global digital order.

parminder 

> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150607/3525be73/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