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

[Paul Rosenzweig]

+1.  For accountability purposes, the key is making sure the IRP has
adequate remit to address all issues of concern and adequate enforceability
of its judgments.  I doubt that we will ever have enforceability against
sovereign nations except to the extent they agree to be bound -- but all
other parties ought to be bindable as a condition of participation,
including ICANN ...

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066


-----Original Message-----
From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 11:10 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT
Session #18 31 March

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.

Regards
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community