[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
jcurran at istaff.org
Wed Jan 29 15:56:36 UTC 2014
On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it.
Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" (which is apparently your
proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that there be treaty body to establish
"Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of existing international norms
to actions that now take place over the Internet?
i.e. "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" Personal Privacy distinct
from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law rather than Vienna Diplomatic
The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique aspects, I am trying to
discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical supreme international body
or whether it is something greater.
Disclaimer: My views alone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss