[CCWG-ACCT] [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint

Olga Cavalli occ at mrecic.gov.ar
Wed Oct 18 00:33:06 UTC 2017

Dear colleagues,

We support what Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca expreses in his message, specially what is stated in point 4.

Best regards 


----- Mensaje original -----
De: "Benedicto Fonseca Filho" <benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br>
Para: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
CC: "ws2-jurisdiction" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>, gac at icann.org
Enviados: Martes, 17 de Octubre 2017 19:22:46
Asunto: [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint

Dear all,

I have been following carefully the discussions in the list. I do not
intend to respond to the many points that were raised, but I think it is
important to bear in mind the following, in preparation for tomorrow´s

1 - Our rules of engagement provide that "In the absence of full
consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority
viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included
in the report"

This is exactly the situation we are experiencing here. There is no full
consensus in regard to the report, as there are formal objections. Those
who, similarly to Brazil, object to the report, should be allowed to
submit their minority viewpoint(s) and these shall be included in the
report. It is as simple as that. Needless to say that those who have
minority views should be free to choose the way they wish to make their
views known, the rationale they are following, the reasons why they
can´t accept the proposed recommendations or why they think those
recommendations are insufficient, etc. There is no pre-determined format
or template to be followed. In other words, the drafting of the minority
viewpoints should be the responsibility of those those who hold such
minority views and not be subject to collective deliberation.

2 - I acknowledge, on the other hand, that the "Statement" we circulated
last Saturday might have included elements that we may consider to
withdraw or reformulate without undermining the essence of our
reasoning. I would think it would be appropriate, for example, for us to
consider deletion of some portions of text included in the last
paragraph of the first page of our "Statement" (Finally, Brazil objects
to the portrayal of the report of a consensus document...") as they have
elicited unnecessary controversy in regard to the process. Similarly, we
could entertain changing, as per the results of discussions at the CCWG
meeting , the way we have presented recommendations we would like to
have seen in the report (the absence of which makes the whole report
unacceptable to us), in order to make sure our document is duly
formatted as a minority viewpoint and not be seen as additional input
for further work at this stage. In that case, we could reformulate, for
example, the introductory paragraph of point 6 ("Brazil calls upon the
CCWG to include in a final report on jurisdiction recommendations to the
effect that..."

3 - I wish to further clarify that both the Statement and its annex
should be read as a single document. Both are needed to clarify the
context and the substance of our objection. As stated above, however, we
could agree to change the final outline of the document as a whole
provided it is duly included in the report as a minority view.

4 - Finally, I should state that several comments that were posted on
the list - some of them ironical or even outright disrespectful - seem
to be guided by a very poor and narrow view of what should be the
essence of the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. At this
point, I would like to state that what takes place in ICANN - although
unique - is not dissociated from the rest of the ecosystem. If we want
to put in place and improve an operational environment in which all
stakeholders can exercise their roles and responsibilities, as per the
Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, mutual respect and mutal
recognition are needed. One of the main concerns that has guided our
participation throughout this exercise was the attempt to explore a
formula that would be aligned with the principle of sovereign equality
among States. This is an un-negotiable principle and we cannot endorse
any framework (either at ICANN or beyond) that would not adequately
address this topic. This is not incompatible with maintaining ICANN's
multistakeholder character nor should it be interpreted - as some
maliciously do - as defending that ICANN becomes a government-led
organisation. Finally, may I just recall that NETMundial, which Brazil
is proud to have hosted, has called for the process of globalization of
ICANN should lead up to a "truly international and global organization".
I don´t recall at the time no one ridiculing that notion nor saying it
was unrealistic or politically unachievable. I assume there is a long
way towards that ultimate goal and that times are not favorable, however
I would strongly advocate against losing sight of the vision that
NETMundial provided us with. This should lead us to look into the
challenges surrounding jurisdiction in a much bolder and comprehensive
way than we were able to do. That´s why, in essence, we cannot agree
with a report that shows the way for some "quick fixes" that, although
important, are not sufficient to meet the expectations that led to the
incorporation of that particular stream in WS2.

Best regards,


-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A. Project , and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ gac mailing list
gac at gac.icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list