[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Tue Feb 18 09:28:12 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Sala, All,
there is no any difference, where is the main office, if ICANN will
keep its current structure. In order to have a real International
organization it is necessary to study   the experience of other
international organizations. Red Cross is a good example of
international organization - it is an association of independent local
Red Cross organizations, and the Secretariat of this assosociation has
its HQ in Switzerland. Of course, in case of ICANN it is necessary to
have some kind of guarantees for democratic procedures, like Veto
power, or Security Council (Like UN SC), or other solution.

Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM

On 18.02.2014 0:35, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> If the Board were to meet and pass a resolution to shift its
> registered office to Geneva, then it would be submitted to the
> authorities in California to justify a shift afterall ICANN is a
> not for profit corporation registered under California laws.
> 
> This could mean expanding the Geneva office and operations but it
> would still be pretty much a Not for Profit company registered in
> California with its registered office in Geneva. Conversely one
> could argue that New York is also home and Headquarters to some of
> the UN organisations, so even a shift from California to New York
> is also a viable option.
> 
> If the institution were to go through structural overhaul where you
> have several options: a) winding up ICANN and rebirthing ICANN to
> have diplomatic standing; b)not winding up ICANN but merely
> shifting its HQ from California to Geneva or New York. c)maintain
> the status quo but make ICANN more accessible globally as they have
> been doing with the hubs - (although I still don't know why we 
> don't have a Pacific Hub yet when the middle east, africa and asia
> have been getting hubs. There are 27 countries and territories in
> the Pacific region that have ccTLDs and we should receive
> indiscriminate treatment)
> 
> There are several glitches that would need to be ironed out and
> that is whether the decision must revert to IETF or to the wider
> community or solely by NTIA and by extension the US Department of
> Commerce. At some stage if there were a legal battle in the US to
> determine who assigned the IANA function, there is potentially
> enough evidence for it to flip either way - to the IETF or to NTIA.
> There are all kinds of issues such as whether one of them could
> have been perceived to have waived their assignment rights and
> whether this was done tacitly. Either way, it is calculated chaos.
> 
> Offices can be opened and manned in different location but the
> concern *_would be in keeping the core critical internet
> infrastructure within the US_* so as not to interfere with
> Security, stability and resiliency.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:04 AM, George Sadowsky 
> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I think that you are quite right in terms of formal
> accountability.
> 
> However, given the importance of the Internet today and in the 
> future, I don’t think that the world will be at all comfortable 
> putting ICANN in the hands of a 16 (or 20, depending upon how you 
> count) member Board of Directors.  I think that’s the case even if 
> the Board were to magically be able to internalize IANA within
> ICANN completely and move to, say, Geneva.
> 
> We could, as you suggest, look at Board selection processes again. 
> An earlier attempt to select Directors through direct voting
> failed badly, in my opinion, but there are a whole range of
> possibilities that could be explored.
> 
> Legal issues need to be addressed.  What type of organization
> would ICANN be if it performed the magic trick above and was
> headquartered in, say, Geneva?  What legal status, and equally
> important, protections, would it need and what would it have?  I
> wish some of the diplomats and lawyers subscribed to this list
> would make contributions that address these questions.
> 
> George
> 
> 
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter 
> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 18/02/2014 02:22, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> If we want to move forward from Ian Peter’s conclusion below,
>>> the
> accountability framework for ICANN becomes crucial, which is why I 
> quoted earlier from Jovan’s two diplomacy-based options.  ICANN
> can internalize IANA without a problem, but then how is ICANN made 
> accountable in a manner that both leaves the degrees of freedom it 
> needs to operate effectively and ensures effective global
> oversight over its activities?
>> 
>> Maybe I'm naive (and maybe sometimes that is a good thing to
>> be), but it seems to me that ICANN is accountable to its Board
>> and its Board members are accountable to the communities that
>> select them.
>> 
>> If there's an accountability problem, surely we'd need to look at
>> the Board selection processes again?
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
> list discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> 
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
> list discuss at 1net.org 
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

- -- 
Grigori Saghyan
PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTAyerAAoJEBp2GIFI5NXc22MH/i4Hoes97Wb52BPWB2ukst6U
qIdffS6qsYHD6geOyIxeG605vGHe0x6C+hdx0fPipzwESzEL4Am3JD54T1lqjVar
ajvMBNsWLRY6KVa39bjBPlQDqsAAzWT97FyUY8dWTEkz5dyd/oThygvO7s7CGa4e
c5KCSL0IwT2RXp23aQF1nQdf/eERlvjBriZIPbsvJRQj9ioiulpo6FGf7vqsuRRR
Fxx0khsthf37FKPxCtKSGdRHF+IdiCkoGghz1YPlarjynUkbQkEYgFLW3dTa+4Xq
KJJPPEBFfon8XeT3RkWijbVRRTqXMZz3msvUVa2rj0vARYtxQL3KuOqd8WmLr/I=
=s6W4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----