[CCWG-ACCT] Call for requirement on the issue of jurisdiction

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Mar 23 03:39:20 UTC 2015


I tend to agree with Kavouss.  I feel that the questions raised by Rahul
are out of scope.  They may be interesting questions, and they may have
something to do with "jurisdiction" in one or more of its many meanings,
but I don't think it is on point with the issues of ICANN's accountability.


I also support Matthieu's summary list.

Greg Shatan

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear All,
> I think we are going to far and too unnecessary sphere!
> I think Mathew,s resume is far enough
> We should think of various alternatives and options for  question we raise
> and other elements such as  timing, implementation and so on
> We should avoid collection of impossible issues for study.
> It might be good to ask colleagues proposing additional questions to also
> suggest alternative solutions for those questions.
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 18:08, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In addition to the below pointers identified by Mathieu, I would like to
> add a few more questions for discussion:
>
> - place and jurisdiction of incorporation
> - jurisdiction of places of physical presence
> - governing law for contracts
> - ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction
> - tax system
>
>
>    - What laws should determine what domain names (including TLDs) are
>    acceptable (example of '.xxx' domain)?
>    - What laws determine whether domains from a particular region can be
>    cancelled?
>    - What laws should determine whether IP addresses or domain names are
>    property or not? Should the local court decision be enforceable across the
>    globe?
>    - What laws should govern whether domain seizure can take place based
>    on local court decisions citing IP infringement?
>    - What laws should determine whether citizens of a particular nation
>    states can apply for gTLDs or not?
>
> Regards,
> Rahul Sharma
>
> On 20 March 2015 at 02:25, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Carlos, Dear Greg, Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I fully agree that we need to focus our work on work stream 1 issue, as
>> was recalled during our last meeting. Still, it is important however that
>> we can explain why a specific topic was considered relevant for a work
>> stream.
>>
>> Carlos, from your message, I understand that you suggest to identify the
>> various layers of the jurisdiction issue. My understanding is that the
>> following layers are mentioned in your messages :
>> - place and jurisdiction of incorporation
>> - jurisdiction of places of physical presence
>> - governing law for contracts
>> - ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction
>> - tax system
>>
>> I would recommend we use this framework to clarify the associated
>> requirements. For instance, and I stress this is just personal
>> brainstorming, for contracts, they need to be in a stable and predictable
>> legal regime.
>> The place of incorporation should certainly be in a jurisdiction with
>> strong corporate governance legislation, providing efficient
>> accountability, but at the same time, enabling flexibility so that the
>> multistakeholder model can be translated into this legal framework.
>> Places of physical presence need to provide stable labour legal
>> frameworks(to hire staff), and some level of flexibility for visas (to
>> accomodate international staff and travel by community members)
>> Physical presence should also take into account security concerns, both
>> for the sake of staff as well as for operations.
>>
>> This is the kind of requirement (the above list is non exhaustive and can
>> be challenged) we should look at to determine our next steps on this
>> question.
>>
>> I hope this helps clarify and I encourage the colleagues who brought up
>> this issue on the list to provide their input.
>>
>> best,
>> Mathieu
>>
>> Le 18/03/2015 19:24, Greg Shatan a écrit :
>>
>>  I agree with Carlos that the issue(s) of "jurisdiction" are
>> multi-layered.  It's also important to realize that the term "jurisdiction"
>> is used to mean several different things (place of incorporation, places of
>> physical presence, governing law, ability to sue and be sued, etc.), and
>> discussions about jurisdiction often get jumbled up for this reason.
>>
>>  However, I think there is a simple and more fundamental issue with
>> regard to the discussion of "jurisdiction" (at least in the sense of "place
>> of incorporation), before we even get to the substance of such a
>> discussion..
>>
>>  It is very important for the CCWG to focus on Work Stream 1 items,
>> since the IANA Transition is dependent on completion of these items.
>> Discussion of ICANN's place of incorporation is a Work Stream 2 item and
>> should not be dealt with in any depth until Work Stream 1 is complete.
>>
>>  Put another way, the place of incorporation of ICANN will not be
>> changing before the IANA Transition, and thus the possibility of such
>> changes has no place in Work Stream 1.  Furthermore, if the CCCWG were to
>> advance any plan as part of Work Stream 1 to change the place of
>> incorporation of ICANN after the IANA Transition, this would be rejected by
>> the NTIA and thus would be an immense waste of time.
>>
>>  This is not to say that discussions of "jurisdiction" (in all of its
>> meanings and layers) should not take place.  Quite the contrary.  These are
>> valid and important topics, and they should be given a full and complete
>> airing.  We just need to prioritize our work appropriately.
>>
>>  Greg Shatan
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mathieu,
>>>
>>>  thank you for this invitation to comment. First of all I have to make
>>> a disclaimer that I`m not a lawyer and I feel that we a have a superb group
>>> of knowledgeable and expert lawyers around this issue and I have little to
>>> add to their discussions. Sometimes i’m even afraid to open my mouth and
>>> get hit back with a strong legal defence attitude, as recently happened to
>>> me trying to make sense of the freedom of expression the way I understand
>>> it.
>>>
>>>  So let me talk of my personal perception on how this issue has been
>>> handled, which has not been satisfactory from my perspective. And my
>>> excuses to all readers if I’m off the mark again.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - The DNS is more global than ever, in different languages and
>>>    scripts, with many new contracts in the languages (and jurisdictions?) of
>>>    the new players in new areas of the World. And I think this is very good
>>>    for the globalisation of the Internet and in response of the search for
>>>    competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, which for me are not only
>>>    one of the 4 values of the AoC, but one of the most promising in terms of
>>>    the future development of the Internet.
>>>    - Every time the jurisdiction of the corporation itself is
>>>    mentioned, I get the feeling that we get into a rather negative/defensive
>>>    mode from different sides, particularly if people are sitting in front of
>>>    lawmakers. When I started studying public finance and taxation long time
>>>    ago all important global US corporations where based in Delaware (of all
>>>    places). Today some of the most important users of the DNS are based in
>>>    Luxembourg or Ireland to the chagrin of US Tax authorities. From my
>>>    perspective until we don’t get an harmonised global tax system, private
>>>    initiatives will be looking for the best balance between where do you
>>>    business with whom, under or away from what jurisdiction. The recent case
>>>    of a Hong Kong Bank subsidiary in Switzerland is a cautionary tele to keep
>>>    in mind.
>>>    - Then we have the scaremongers who worry not a bout watching soccer
>>>    games, but about all the money its federation makes and does not get taxed
>>>    and governed. i.e.FIFA.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Obviously between those extreme points of view is difficult to have an
>>> effective discussion on the "issue of jurisdiction” as you call it, without
>>> explaining if we are talking about the narrow issues of the global DNS
>>> contracts the Board has to sign, or about the day to day operations of the
>>> Corporation, or the  global accountability and transparency standards under
>>> which ALL (as per NetMundial Statement, section Roadmap) Internet entities
>>>  should work, so that the systems remains as it is today (and ICANNs luck
>>> to draw the ticket and become the guinea pig).
>>>
>>>  So my request is to please make clear on which layer are we talking
>>> about the jurisdiction issue and why is there a need for a change. For
>>> example
>>>
>>>    - Is the jurisdiction hindering the globalisation of the DNS because
>>>    of legal paperwork?
>>>    - Is the jurisdiction hindering the operations of the corporation,
>>>    from security and stability, COSTS (particularly for review and redress),
>>>    tax, human resources, and other operational concerns?
>>>    - Is the jurisdiction hindering the global public good in terms of
>>>    access (including cost of access for users), human rights, freedom of
>>>    expression, competition, etc.?
>>>
>>>
>>>  And you don’t have the 3 layers I have proposed, you can choose 6
>>> different ones, but make it clear from the outset for the benefit of the
>>> "legally challenged", so there is wider participation in this very
>>> interesting discussion.
>>>
>>>  Best luck in Istambul
>>>
>>>  Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>> _____________________
>>>
>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org
>>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>>> +506 8335 2487 <%2B506%208335%202487> (cel)
>>> +506 4000 2000 <%2B506%204000%202000> (home)
>>> +506 2290 3678 <%2B506%202290%203678> (fax)
>>> _____________________
>>> Apartado 1571-1000
>>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Mar 18, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>> During our call yesterday we decided to engage with you to gather input
>>> on a requirement based approach to the issue of jurisdiction which has been
>>> raised.
>>>
>>> So far this issue has been raised when discussing some of the stress
>>> tests, the incorporation of the AoC into the Bylaws, as well as in generic
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>> What we are looking for to ensure we keep our discussion at the level of
>>> accountability and root it into stakeholder expectations, are descriptions
>>> of accountability requirements that lead you (or some of you) to raise the
>>> question of jurisdiction. Topics such as applicable jurisdiction of Icann
>>> contracts have been raised so far for instance.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance for contributing to shaping this important aspect
>>> of our work. responses are expected before March 20th so that we can
>>> organize work in Istanbul.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> --
>>> *****************************
>>> Mathieu WEILL
>>> AFNIC - directeur général
>>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
>>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>>> *****************************
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *****************************
>> Mathieu WEILL
>> AFNIC - directeur général
>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>> *****************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150322/de1919e0/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list