[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
Sam Lanfranco
sam at lanfranco.net
Sat Dec 24 20:22:30 UTC 2016
Colleagues,
This is a short attempt is my last effort to get to the essence of the
jurisdiction issue, an issue that is both complex and contentious. There
are two views at play here. I will try to capture them in simple terms,
without repeating the arguments supporting either position.
One is that jurisdiction is such a hot button issue that, as Philip
Corwin argues, raising it as a major issue in its own right would
“…further inflame a debate that cannot end in consensus agreement, as
there is a fundamental incompatibility between altering ICANN’s status
as California non-profit and effectively exercising the empowered
community accountability powers that accompanied the IANA transition and
were designed to operate within that specific legal framework.” . The
other view, stated by Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva, is that the topic of
jurisdiction was postponed by the CCWG because “the majority of this
group thought it was not appropriate to deal with it in the
pre-transition period due to time constraints”, and I might add because
it is both complex and contentious.
Had the issues not been complex and contentious, either (a) something
like Philip Corwin’s push for “ICANN’s permanent status as a US-based
non-profit corporation…enshrined in a Fundamental Bylaw prior to the
completion of WS1” would be up for discussion, or (b) the NETmundial
call for “…ICANN’s internationalization and not becoming an
intergovernmental organization” would have built some options based on
seeking answers to a list of relevant jurisdiction questions. At this
point we would have some progress on what, in the longer term, is the
way forward. None of that has happened.
As well, I agree with the view is that “Until this matter is resolved
with finality it will remain a scab to be constantly picked at, always
threatening to become a festering sore on the body politic of IG”.
Philip Corwin and others worry about the downside risks to any rash
attempt to recommend a change in ICANN’s organizational jurisdiction.
Others see the act of not addressing it as a partisan effort to “sweep
the issue under the rug” and maintain a self-interested status quo. In
the absence of a proper discussion around this issue the “festering
sore” will remain. Stakeholders will be embroiled in ill framed disputes
that inflame positions, and do not lead to better insights on how
ICANN’s residence and jurisdiction issues are addressed. Without
dialogue even the status quo will become an increasingly untenable
position.
My view is that current CCWG discussion should include discussion about
where and how that jurisdiction discussion should occur. The
jurisdiction issue is a challenge, an exciting opportunity for ICANN to
pioneer new ground, and more broadly an opportunity to further refine
global multistakeholder engagement in bottom-up policy making. In terms
of ICANN’s decision making speed this will require a longer time frame
than that for the current CCWG on Accountability, although advice on how
to this discussion should be constituted is a legitimate agenda item for
the current Accountability CCWG.
Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list