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

Tue Feb 18 11:51:01 UTC 2014

Gregori

That sounds like the utopian solution to this ICANN issue.

The reality however is far from it. I suspect (and I think its already playing out) that the considerations are going to be as political as ever.

My take is that NO GOVERNMENT at this point in time has the moral standing to (ok maybe that's a bit harsh) to actually advocate for a new dispensation.

The closest model I see is that is totally Non-Aligned. Which in my humble opinion means that the private sector for profit and not for profit needs to take the lead on a new ICANN.

Ali Hussein

+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113

"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Grigori Saghyan <gregor at arminco.com> wrote:
> 
> -----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-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140218/d29c0312/attachment-0001.html>