[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

[Schweighofer Erich]

Problem analysis of Phil Corwin is correct not the conclusion that we cannot do much in the long run.

Every expert knows that it is a long shot without much practice to create an accountability model on the international level. It should be considered – on an academic level at the moment -  for the unlikely case that U.S. jurisdiction is not be most appropriate one.

Best, Erich Schweighofer





Von: Nigel Roberts<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Dezember 2016 21:00
An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results



Phil is entirely correct.

We have dedicated 20 years since the IFWP of 1998-9 to creating a
multistakeholder model.

We cannot seek to change that in pursuit of a perceived immunity that
would make ICANN unaccountable.



On 19/12/16 19:49, Phil Corwin wrote:
> I believe that requesting views regarding “/providing possible
> jurisdictional immunity”/ are both misleading and outside the scope of
> this WG.
>
>
>
> ICANN based upon the MSM is of necessity an entity that is private in
> nature in which civil society, academia, business, and other private
> parties formulate policy and governments have a secondary role to
>  provide advice. The only entities I know other than nation-states that
> enjoy any degree of jurisdictional immunity are International
> Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) established by treaty, and in
> those organizations governments have the controlling role. Hence,
> pursuit of any type of jurisdictional immunity is equivalent to an
> effort to change the fundamental nature of ICANN,  as well as being in
> violation of the key condition of the IANA transition, which is that
> ICANN would not become an IGO. In addition, providing ICANN with
> jurisdictional immunity would insulate it from legal process and hence
> undermine accountability.
>
>
>
> Finally, as I know based upon my current tenure as Co-Chair of the WG
> looking at access to curative rights processes by IGOs, when we sought
> expert legal advice on the recognized scope of immunity for IGOs we
> learned that such immunity is not absolute and that the scope is based
> upon the specific fact situation involved as well as the national court
> in which the immunity is claimed. Hence, going down this road would
> require a tremendous amount of additional legal research dealing with a
> variety of hypothetical scenarios in separate national jurisdictions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172/Cell***
>
> * *
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *parminder
> *Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2016 8:10 AM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday 17 December 2016 12:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>     SNIP
>
>     John Laprise's wording was much, much better:
>
>     "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"
>
>
> This formulation does not include possibilities of jurisdictional immunity.
>
> Something like
>
>
> "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, */or providing possible jurisdictional immunity,/* particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"
>
>
> would be better.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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