[discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jan 16 07:55:52 UTC 2014

On Wednesday 15 January 2014 01:22 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> And despite writing this, while he advocates for the root to be freed
> >from US's executive authority, he is not ready to also free it from US's
>> legal and legislative authority.
> Wrong.
If what I say is wrong, you simply have to say the following words... 
Yes indeed, I , Milton, want the root to be freed  not only from the 
executive authority of the US gov - exercised through the DoC-  but also 
legal (courts) and legislative (congress plus) authority of the US.... I 
would immediately accept that I was wrong to make an assertion to the 
contrary, and apologise.

And if indeed we can agree to the above proposition, I think we have 
agreed to most of it... We can then together work out the details of how 
to operationalise this principle, and there are a few sets of options 
available. (We already agree that ICANN or any body with such kind of 
executive authority needs some outside accountability mechanisms.)

>   This is typical of why people disengage from discussions with you, Parminder.

It is typical of you to get rude when you do not have a good argument. 
As shown above, you havent...

>   I've chased you around this circle several times. I've explained times that moving ICANN from California law to some other jursidiction is not necessarily a gain for either the accountability or the autonomy of ICANN.

Two things, accountability is always, accountability to whom... We want 
it to be to the whole world since ICANN sits over a global resource and 
not just to US-ians. Second, I have heard you say that you do not agree 
to full autonomy for ICANN with no oversight mechanism at all, however 
light, post facto etc.. Am I wrong.

> ICANN could remain in the US and have some kind of host country agreement that exempted it from US legislative interventions;

You of course know that it s quite meaningless to say that an entity 
incorporated under the laws of a state in the US (California law) enters 
into a host country agreement with the US... What exactly do you have in 
mind here... Host county agreements are entered into by organisations 
incorporated under international law, or at least a foreign jurisdiction 
vis a vis the country with which a host country agreement is supposed to 
be entered into.

But still very interesting, that you speak of ICANN getting into *a host 
country agreement which exempted it from the US legislative process*. I 
think I have heard you say this for the first time. Well, this is one of 
our major demands, in fact the single most important one. I am not that 
interested in moving ICANN out of the US.

> by the same token it could be moved to Geneva and lack all accountability to anyone. You have to propose something specific that is demonstrably better. If you do, or someone else does, I am quite receptive to it. Your response has always been just "international law under the UN" which means dozens of additional nation-states, including the US, set the terms.  Any

Yes, it has been proposed to the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation, together 
by more than 45 organisations. See 

> way, I have an open mind for practical proposals

Thanks. See above then.
>> Milton, I may be wrong in characterising the implication of the
>> ICANN globalisation/ internationalisation proposal that you advocate,
>> in which case please do correct me....
> Consider yourself corrected.
> I am working on a proposal for the Brazil meeting btw.

The world awaits with bated breath :)... More seriously, I will comment 
on it when I read it. My existing comments are on the proposals that you 
have forwarded till now..

> --MM

More information about the discuss mailing list