[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #18 31 March

McAuley, David dmcauley at verisign.com
Mon Apr 6 15:09:49 UTC 2015

Speaking here of my personal opinion, I agree with Bruce that jurisdiction (in terms of where states, IGOs, and other stakeholders might be able to take issues to a "jurisdictionally appropriate" court) is less about where ICANN is physically located/incorporated and more about the ability of affected parties to use courts that are appropriate for them.

Sidley/Austin, the lawyers advising the CWG (and the CCWG in conjunction with the Adler firm), noted during the CWG meeting in Istanbul that canvassing the laws of all possible countries in this respect can get very costly very quickly and add to that that it would be very time-consuming. 

I would argue that the outcome of any such research may not be that clear in any event - concepts of jurisdiction for waging lawsuits are changing as the world economy becomes more and more digital.  ICANN is probably already subject to jurisdiction for litigation in a whole lot of places around the globe (the answer won't become absolutely clear vis-a-vis any particular country until litigation on the issue occurs there and jurisdiction is addressed by the court).

And so my answer to Bruce's suggestion that the CCWG could perhaps get legal advice on how to ensure access to appropriate courts would be to instead ensure that IRP has scope to consider issues of substance and that a way be found to have IRP rulings enforced. It seems to me that that would be better than canvassing endless and possibly opaque laws from around the world.  

David McAuley

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 7:09 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #18 31 March

Hello Avri

>> On Jurisdiction:

I agree that this is a basic topic that still needs to be covered.  I believe it is about making sure that any of the stakeholders has a chance to argue their case in a jurisdictionally appropriate venue. For States and IGOs, that is not generally the US court system. A solution for this does seem to be a necessary part of any accountability solution.

I think you have stated the problem well here.   It might be an area where the CCWG can get some legal advice on how to ensure the above can be achieved.   Ie it is less about where ICNAN is physically located or incorporated - and more about the ability of affected parties to use courts that are appropriate for them.

Bruce Tonkin
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list