[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
Sam Lanfranco
sam at lanfranco.net
Fri Dec 16 15:26:55 UTC 2016
Colleagues,
I may be completely wrong here, and if so, excuse me. The discussion
around Question 4 reminds me, from my Canadian vantage point, of the
early this year U.S. Republican Nominating Conference in which the now
U.S. President Elect was opposed by many in the Republican party, and
their motto & chant was "Anybody but Trump". That was of course a
non-starter since sound strategy says "Who else? Present a contender.".
Whether or not jurisdiction should be an issue, immediately post IANA
Transition and dealing with those issues is not the time to move it to
the top of a "to do" list. The "to do" plate is full, and nothing is
obviously broken.
Beyond that, there is time for the research around "Where else? Present
contender locations.". I used to hear, in the ICANN event hallways,
whispers about Geneva, then we got the Olympic and FIFA
(football/soccer) organization scandals. What they made clear is that
location is less important that organizational transparency and
accountability. These are areas where the ICANN multistakeholder
constituencies are hard at work, working on ICANN improvements. I may
be completely wrong here, but no matter what our individual independent
views are about "location and jurisdiction" there is plenty on our "to
do" list. That work is relevant no matter where ICANN resides.
For those of us who feel that there are jurisdiction and location
issues, I would suggest that research, call it due diligence if that
sounds more non-academic, be done to identify contenders, and at an
appropriate time the existing location and jurisdiction can be evaluated
against a list of contenders.
Sam Lanfranco NPOC/csih
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list