[cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

> On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Patrik,
> 
> What it means to you may be reasonable.

I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself.

> Indeed the US may have agreed with you.

Maybe.

> But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level.
> 
> In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was. 
> 
> Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.)
> 
> I sometimes wonder though what happens now. 
> 
> Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise! 

What happens with these questions is that international politics and interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but that's life.

> In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit?
> 
> Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved?

I guess so.

> ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California.

Do ICANN, or is that only what people think?

> In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law!

Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally.

Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU.

   Patrik

> 
> Gordon
> 
> 
>> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
>> 
>>> As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
>>> 
>>> However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
>>> 
>>> But others might have different recollections.
>> 
>> As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar.
>> 
>> I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive.
>> 
>>  Patrik
> 
>