[governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control

Tue Oct 20 08:39:29 EDT 2015

Its shocking to hear that we have been misled all along that jurisdiction
is a part of Work Stream 2 of CCWG! Why couldn't NTIA be upfront while
announcing the transition and list this condition as the 5th
principle/criteria? They have extracted endless number of man hours from us
under false promises of a bottom-up process whereas most of the major
issues are being dictated top-down by the NTIA!

During the deliberations of the CWG and CCWG, there are two constant
arguments used by status quoists that have dangled as sharp swords over the
participants:
1) We suspect that the NTIA will not accept this change causing the
transition to fail.
2) We suspect that the Board will not accept this change causing the
transition to fail.

Ultimately, participants are so fearful of crossing these imaginary
boundaries of what NTIA may accept, that we have started faithfully
reproducing what NTIA desires. We are so fearful of a failed transition
that we err on the side of status quo.

However, what hits me the most that the United States is selectively
following multistakeholder processes where its convenient for them. The
recent RZM proposal developed secretly by NTIA, Verisign and ICANN
demonstrate that multistakeholder processes are endorsed by the United
States only when its convenient to their interests.

I only wish the WSIS document, while endorsing multistakeholder processes,
was substantive enough to recognise US dominant control (by corporate
capture, by judicial control, by executive control and by legislative
control) over multistakeholder processes and organisations as an issue that
needs resolution over time. I dont understand the point behind living in
denial. Who are we even fooling?

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
wrote:

> Dear Gene and Milton,
> Respectfully, you seem to have missed this bit from Larry's testimony
> before the House Sub-committee, which prompted this question.
>
> https://youtu.be/8v-yWye5I0w
>
> "It's today, in the byelaws, that ICANN will remain in California, and of
> course their articles of incorporation as currently established require
> that it be a California corporation. So, there has been no proposal -
> serious proposal, made in the course of these discussions to move the
> location of ICANN outside of the United States. Frankly, if it were being
> proposed, I don't think that such a proposal would satisfy our criteria,
> specifically the one that requires that security and stability be
> maintained. So, we expect that this would continue on into the future."
>
> It's not just Strickling's view on what Congress would say, but the
> administration's precondition. Unless, of course he lied before the House
> Sub-committee.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> On 20 October 2015 12:35:47 pm GMT+01:00, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Oh no,  Mr. Mueller. My question was two parts. Will US support a
> >change in
> >jurisdiction and will there be support for the multistakeholder in the
> >event that jurisdiction changes?
> >He said very eloquently -  no.
> >On 20 Oct 2015 17:04, "Mueller, Milton L" <
> >milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> No quite accurate.
> >> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the
> >> jurisdiction of ICANN.
> >> He said no.
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> >> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
> >> > To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> > Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
> >> > Conditional on US Remaining in Control
> >> >
> >> > At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
> >NTIA
> >> was
> >> > asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support
> >the
> >> > multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
> >> >
> >> > He said that it wouldn't.
> >> >
> >> > https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Pranesh Prakash
> >> > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> >http://cis-india.org |
> >> tel:+91
> >> > 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> >> > https://twitter.com/pranesh
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
> Sent over open standards using free software on a mobile device. Please
> excuse my brevity.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151020/0963a752/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