[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Dec 27 07:16:49 UTC 2016


On Monday 26 December 2016 11:36 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear All,
> It is really funny and surprising that one individual believes that he
> is the only one who is right and the rest of the people either wrong
> or misunderstood or have no idea.
> How some one could claim that whatever other people say is mistake
> There is no rational nor convincing arguments Q's 1-3 will suffer from
> their attachment to the potentially Q4.
> Sir, you can not drop the reality as it exists  .I wish to hear how
> you and your colleagues as US citizens/residents  having  serious
> concerns about possible intrusions of US foreign policy and other
> nationalistic and governmental concerns into ICANN matters would
> resolve or prevent such interférence .Everyone  is  staunch supporters
> of a nongovernmental model in this space .Whether you have or have
> not inherent objection to California law as ICANN's basis is your
> choice but it is not others's choices .
>
> It is not clear from where you got the information that there are
> still a few people out there who would like for ICANN to become
> intergovernmental,  Your judgement  on whether there minority or
> majority  has no valid basis and your judgement on the weight of
> history  being totally against them is also just your guess.
> You can not deny the fact that there is a high impact of US
> jurisdiction, because the US is a global power with very specific
> foreign policy and military interests. US jurisdiction thus may have
> the potential to create opportunities for one government -  the US -
> to have an inappropriate level of influence over ICANN's transnational
> process ,Then what you propose to stop such influence

Yes, I would also like to know. To quote you, Milton, "Supporters of the
MS model and opponents of intergovernmentalism have legitimate reasons
to investigate the impact of US jurisdiction, because the US is a global
power with very specific foreign policy and military interests. US
jurisdiction thus may have the potential to create opportunities for one
government -  the US - to have an inappropriate level of influence over
ICANN's transnational, nonstate actor based governance processes."

 I havent seen not only no attempt to explore ways to stop such
influence by you, and many others here, but, much more problematically,
strong resistance to anyone trying to do so. Now that you state the
matter in this way, it does arouse curiosity about what kind of
directions of exploration you yourself possibly see in this regard.

As for your next sentence
"One can consider those issues without implying that ICANN's corporate
HQ needs to move."

Yes, this is entirely true. Have been saying this for a long time but
somehow hasnt had traction.

parminder

> There is no narrow and wide questions all are valid questions
> interrelated and must go together.
> Allow all 4 questions go out and then wait what will happens  .
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-12-26 17:42 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > At the same time, let us all try to return to a constructive and
>     step-by-step
>     > approach, building on the progress made so far, in order to make
>     progress on
>     > our mandate, established by the whole multistakeholder community
>     back in
>     > Marrakech.
>
>     I agree, and I think both Pedro's and Phil's position are based on
>     some confusion of issues. It we calm down a bit and look at this
>     more carefully we can make progress.
>
>     Pedro may be confusing the inclusion or exclusion of Question 4 in
>     our initial request with the question of whether we explore issues
>     in US jurisdiction at all.  But excluding Question 4 from our
>     initial request for information is not the same as a refusal to
>     explore the questions it raises. I have proposed _separating_ Q4
>     from the other 3 questions, not eliminating it entirely. I
>     proposed this not because I want to avoid the questions Q4 poses,
>     but because I want those questions to be developed better and I
>     want to avoid conflating it with the narrower questions about
>     dispute resolution that Q's 1-3 were designed to address. It is a
>     mistake to put those two things together. The information we
>     gather from Q's 1-3 will suffer from their attachment to the
>     potentially more controversial issues raised by Q4. Let me also
>     add that the divisive insistence that this is a matter of US
>     citizens vs non-US citizens needs to be dropped. Avri and myself,
>     e.g., are both US citizens/residents and have serious concerns
>     about possible intrusions of US foreign policy and other
>     nationalistic and governmental concerns into ICANN matters. At the
>     same time we are both staunch supporters of a nongovernmental
>     model in this space and have no inherent objection to California
>     law as ICANN's basis.
>
>     Phil Corwin on the other hand is confusing the issue of whether
>     ICANN's corporate HQ is in California with the question of whether
>     ICANN will be an intergovernmental entity. These questions have
>     very little to do with each other. It is of course true that there
>     are still a few people out there who would like for ICANN to
>     become intergovernmental, but they are a tiny minority and the
>     weight of history is totally against them. Put more bluntly, it
>     ain't gonna happen. Supporters of the MS model and opponents of
>     intergovernmentalism have legitimate reasons to investigate the
>     impact of US jurisdiction, because the US is a global power with
>     very specific foreign policy and military interests. US
>     jurisdiction thus may have the potential to create opportunities
>     for one government -  the US - to have an inappropriate level of
>     influence over ICANN's transnational, nonstate actor based
>     governance processes. One can consider those issues without
>     implying that ICANN's corporate HQ needs to move.
>
>     So let's stop making the status of Q4 a proxy for a long-settled
>     war over whether ICANN is private or governmental, and let's stop
>     pretending that those who want to separate the issues raised by Q4
>     from the narrower more focused issues in Q1-3 are trying to avoid
>     legitimate issues.
>
>     As for creating a separate CCWG, are you kidding? This is the CCWG
>     subgroup created specifically for jurisdictional issues and we
>     don't make difficult issues easier to resolve by creating
>     additional structures.
>
>     Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>     Professor, School of Public Policy
>     Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>     >
>     > In this vein, and consistent with our conversation in Hyderabad,
>     let us
>     > continue with the line directed to requesting input from the
>     wider community.
>     >
>     > The four questions developed so far will allow us to gather much
>     needed input
>     > on facts, examples and well-founded opinions on the influence of
>     ICANNs
>     > jurisdiction, taking into account its multiple layers, on its
>     operations and
>     > accountability.
>     >
>     > If we all are constructive and accept esch others' views as
>     worthy of further
>     > discussion and study, we will be able to get this important step
>     further.
>     >
>     > Hence, let us please stay on the right track and finalize
>     formulations of all four
>     > questions, and keep up the good spirit of cooperation.
>     >
>     > with my best wishes for you all during the festivities
>     >
>     > kind regards
>     >
>     > Jorge
>     >
>     >
>     > ________________________________
>     >
>     > Von: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br
>     <mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>>
>     > Datum: 24. Dezember 2016 um 15:53:55 MEZ
>     > An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, parminder
>     > <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>,
>     Kavouss Arasteh
>     > <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>     > Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     <accountability-cross-
>     > community at icann.org <mailto:community at icann.org>>
>     > Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and
>     Poll Results
>     >
>     > Dear CCWG-colleagues,
>     >
>     > After reading some comments in this email thread, I must admit
>     to be really
>     > disappointed.
>     >
>     > Some of our colleagues in the CCWG seem to have forgotten -
>     perhaps on
>     > purpose - that the topic of jurisdiction was allocated to WS2 as
>     a result of a
>     > postponement, since the majority of this group thought it was
>     not appropriate
>     > to deal with it in the pre-transition period due to time
>     constraints. My
>     > government  was not in favor of postponing the discussion on
>     jurisdiction, as
>     > we consider it was - and remains - a fundamental aspect of a new
>     ICANN truly
>     > governed by the multistakeholder community without any pre-conditions,
>     > but in respect to the viewpoint of the other colleagues, we
>     agreed to move it
>     > to WS2.
>     >
>     > Now that time has come to properly deal with this topic, it is
>     quite frustrating
>     > to notice that some participants  insist on limiting and/or
>     procrastinating this
>     > debate, including by using the absurd argument that any
>     discussion around
>     > jurisdiction cannot put into question any aspect already decided
>     in WS1,
>     > which is embedded in the California law. We cannot see good
>     faith in that kind
>     > of circular argument.
>     >  In our view, the  discussion around the inclusion or exclusion
>     of Q.4 shows
>     > quite clearly that some of those who have fiercely objected to
>     any jurisdiction
>     > debate during WS1 are  maintaining their objection in WS2 as
>     well. On that
>     > particular topic (Q.4) we concur with the view that upon deciding on
>     > institutional arrangements we should not only consider already
>     occurred
>     > cases but also take into account logically strong possibilities.
>     The responses to
>     > the questionnaire should thus help us to deal with all
>     possibilities associate to
>     > jurisdiction. In case any unsubstantiated opinion will be
>     received, it should be
>     > summarily discarded.
>     > From the various jurisdiction calls it became quite evident that
>     a substantial
>     > part of the subgroup - mainly non-US - has great interest in
>     examining and
>     > debating ways through which we can make sure that any issue
>     associated to
>     > jurisdiction  be addressed in a way compatible  with the company's
>     > international remit of coordinating Internet public identifiers.
>     In that context, I
>     > would like to highlight my government´s understanding that
>     although the
>     > proposed questionnaire under discussion may provide us with some
>     relevant
>     > factual information, it does not in any way cover all aspects of
>     interest. We
>     > would like to refer, for example, to the list of issues compiled
>     by Kavouss
>     > Arasteh as per his 13 December 2016 e-mail. We would also refer to
>     > questions that have continuously been asked by Parminder, apparently
>     > without any satisfactory answer. Those issues and questions
>     include, for
>     > example, dispute settlement related topics, which demonstrates,
>     in our view,
>     > that jurisdiction cannot be seen purely from businesses´
>     viewpoint. As
>     > someone has stated, we also need to look at the relationship
>     between ICANN
>     > and third parties and adequately consider non-contracted Parties
>     that might
>     > be affected by ICANN´s acts and/or omissions.
>     > From the perspective of the Brazilian government, the topics
>     raised by
>     > Kavouss, Parminder and others are issues of particular interest 
>     which,
>     > needless to say, will not be adequately addressed through the
>     mere analysis
>     > of the answers provided to the questionnaire, whether it
>     includes Q.4 or not.
>     >  My government has  expressed its interest in pursuing discussion on
>     > jurisdiction through those angles  many times - both  during the
>     IANA
>     > transition process and  well before that. Other governments have done the
>     > same, as well as a sound number of civil society organizations
>     around the
>     > globe. The "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", while
>     calling for the
>     > internationalization of ICANN, clearly expresses this as well.
>     Let me
>     > emphasize, by the way, that the NETmundial Statement calls for
>     ICANN´s
>     > internationalization and not for it to become an intergovernmental
>     > organization. Those are two different notions that should not be
>     confounded.
>     >
>     > If this subgroup fails to deal with the multidimensional issues
>     associated to
>     > jurisdiction  properly , it may be applauded by some segments ,
>     but it will not
>     > contribute to putting in place a framework that will ensure the
>     shared goal of
>     > making ICANN a legitimate  entity in the eyes of all
>     stakeholders, including
>     > governments. To achieve that, no issues should be discarded as "non
>     > important" or "not yet verified". While preserving the essence
>     of what was
>     > achieved in WS1, innovative thinking, including on the part of
>     persons with
>     > legal expertise, will be needed. Is it worth to wipe an
>     important debate under
>     > the carpet just to comfort one or a few stakeholder groups while
>     > discontenting others? What kind of legitimacy is such a biased
>     and limited
>     > exercise likely to have within the international community? .
>     >
>     > It is time the subgroup - including the coChairs - make a honest
>     assessment of
>     > the various viewpoints related to  ICANN's jurisdiction and
>     conduct the debate
>     > as openly as possible in order to address all the concerns and
>     interests behind
>     > it.
>     >
>     > Kind regards,
>     >
>     > Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
>     > Division of Information Society
>     > Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Brazil
>     > T: +55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B55%2061%202030-6609>
>     >
>     > ________________________________
>     > De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>     [accountability-
>     > cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] em nome de parminder
>     > [parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
>     > Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2016 14:01
>     > Para: Kavouss Arasteh; Greg Shatan
>     > Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     > Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and
>     Poll Results
>     >
>     >
>     > Dear Kavouss
>     >
>     > You are right, we should first deal with the issue of the
>     questionnaire.
>     >
>     > I agree, as do many others, that there is no justification to
>     remove the
>     > proposed Q 4 from the questionnaire. The question must go out
>     along with
>     > others.
>     >
>     > A question seeking information is only a question seeking
>     information. People
>     > may chose to not respond to it, or give different responses,
>     likely in
>     > opposition to one another. That is all very fine, and quite
>     expected. But such
>     > forceful arguments to not ask for certain kinds of information
>     is very
>     > disturbing, even alarming. (I have issues with how the other
>     questions are
>     > framed, but I am fine to let them go out because some people
>     want them to
>     > be posed.)
>     >
>     > Ordinarily, if a good number of participants here wanted a
>     question, that
>     > should be enough to include it. Here, a majority of those who
>     voted on the
>     > issue of this particular question wanted the question included.
>     That should
>     > have conclusively stopped the debate. But no, not so. There is
>     persistent effort
>     > to censor this question. And this in a process that is
>     advertised as open,
>     > transparent, collaborative, and what not. There is something
>     very basically
>     > wrong here.
>     >
>     > parminder
>     >
>     > On Thursday 22 December 2016 07:20 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>     > Dear John.
>     > Dear Parminder,
>     > It is difficult for me to conclude on any solution between the
>     lines of your
>     > discussion.
>     > Could any of you kindly give a resume of the  exchanged views.
>     > We need to look for some compromise solution knowing that some hard
>     > liners like x and y insist to impose their objections to send
>     Q4.I continue to
>     > object to all questions until all 4 are agreed Nothing is agreed
>     untill everything
>     > is agreed this is a  Global multistakholder Group discussion and
>     NOT North
>     > American Sub-Region multistakholder Group dominated by certain
>     individuals
>     > Regards Kavouss
>     >
>     > 2016-12-22 13:06 GMT+01:00 parminder
>     > <parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>>:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tuesday 20 December 2016 08:37 PM, John Laprise wrote:
>     > "To turn ones face away and say, nothing can be done here, to
>     evolve our
>     > democratic international systems, is to vote for a status quo
>     which serves
>     > some, but not others."
>     >
>     > Rather, it is an acknowledgement of reality.
>     >
>     > Apologies for appearing to be flippant, but isnt that what every
>     status quo-ist
>     > says.
>     > Rule of law is neither globally strong nor evenly distributed. I
>     can imagine a
>     > world in which the way forward you describe is plausible but,
>     regrettably, it is
>     > not the one we live in. Other systems need strengthening and in
>     some cases
>     > even existence before the way forward is open. It's not a vote
>     for the status
>     > quo but a recognition of path dependency.
>     >
>     > I am not asking for a violent deviation from the path - both
>     options that I
>     > propose, a new international law and immunity under existing US
>     Act carries
>     > forward the path-dependency, and completely safeguard the existing
>     > structures and processes of ICANN, the system I think you allude
>     to as
>     > requiring strengthening. What I propose in fact further
>     strengthens it, to a
>     > considerable extent. The ICANN system's current jurisdictional
>     oversight by a
>     > single country is its biggest weak point in terms of
>     international legitimacy. ( A
>     > point, unfortunately USians here seem not able to see and
>     sympathise with.)
>     > Imagine an ICANN with immunity from US jurisdiction; how much
>     legitimacy,
>     > and thus strength, it adds to the system.
>     >
>     >
>     > Thanks for the back rounder Parminder. It was, along with some
>     parallel
>     > research, quite helpful.
>     >
>     > Thanks John, you are welcome.
>     >
>     > The problem remains however that there is no analogous
>     organization to
>     > ICANN merely in terms of its contractual authority.
>     >
>     > Firstly, if we are hoping that a fully-developed, well-rounded
>     solution, with
>     > everything fully covered by enough exact precedents, to this
>     complex but very
>     > genuine problem, will simply one day drop in our laps, I assure
>     you that this is
>     > not going to happen. We have to work for it, join the dots, take
>     risks, make
>     > innovations, and so on. The point is, who is losing and gaining
>     what from the
>     > present dispensation, and who is willing to do what is required
>     to do.
>     >
>     > Next, I see that organisations like International Fertilizer and
>     Development
>     > Centre, which we cited as an example of an NPO given jurisdictional
>     > immunity, also does run many projects worldwide. Any such
>     project would
>     > require use of a legal status, entering contracts, and so on....
>     We just need to
>     > look into it. But if we close our eyes, and simply refuse to
>     explore options, we
>     > are not going to get anywhere. I am not saying this example will
>     be an exact fit
>     > for our requirement, but we need to see what is possible, and
>     innovate and
>     > evolve over it.
>     >
>     > I'd also add that many of the benefits of the act are at the
>     discretion of the US
>     > Secretary of State and can be revoked.
>     >
>     > Yes, which is why immunity under US Act is less sustainable
>     option than
>     > international law based immunity. But still better than the
>     present condition.
>     > In the recent civil society statement on
>     >
>     jurisdiction<http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of
>     <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of>
>     > %20ICANN.pdf>, we also suggested a method whereby any such
>     withdrawal of
>     > immunity can be made difficult/ ineffectual (see option 3 in the
>     end).
>     >
>     > The proposed jurisdictional immunity would also require all
>     governments to
>     > sign off on such status, given ICANN's reach.
>     >
>     > I dont see why so. Only US gov needs to agree.
>     >
>     > I know that there is a significant literature on international
>     compacts and law.
>     > Given the often decades long time frames for the passage and
>     acceptance of
>     > such law, the Internet as we know it is unlikely to exist by the
>     time it comes
>     > into force.
>     >
>     > These are weak excuses. It can be done in 6 months. But in any
>     case, if it
>     > satisfies those who want to move towards international
>     jurisdiction, what do
>     > you lose in allowing to set in motion the process, esp if you
>     think it would take
>     > forever to do anything. Let those who want have it. In the
>     interim, status quo
>     > would stay.
>     >
>     >
>     > To your question about why we do not discuss jurisdictional
>     immunity under
>     > US law: it is because the domestic political reality of the
>     situation makes such
>     > an eventuality so remote as to be hypothetical.
>     >
>     > The same domestic situation makes the continuation of ICANN under US
>     > jurisdiction even less tenable.
>     >
>     > This brings me to a very important point: the job of CCWG,
>     working on behalf
>     > of the global community, is not to second guess what US gov will
>     accept or
>     > not (unfortunately, that is what it has mostly done). If this
>     was its real task, we
>     > as well may let US gov do what it may, instead of providing them
>     the cover of
>     > legitimacy of the supposed will of the so called 'global
>     community' which is
>     > what this process does. Our job is to recommend what we think in
>     is best
>     > global interest, and is ordinarily plausible to do. This is what
>     our job is, and we
>     > must just do that. Let US gov do its job - accept our recs or
>     not. That burden is
>     > upon them - let s not take up their burden. This aspect of the
>     work of the
>     > "community" groups involved in the transition process has always
>     greatly
>     > bothered me. We must have clarity about - on whose behalf are we
>     working (i
>     > think, for the global community, but you can clarify) and what
>     our recs must
>     > be based on (I think, on our understanding of what is best for
>     the global
>     > community, and not what we think US gov likes and would agree
>     to, and what
>     > not, but again you can clarify)
>     >
>     >
>     > The described quest is admirable but IMO is a non-starter.
>     Conditions do not
>     > exist presently to make it a possible.
>     >
>     > We are part of once in decades constitutional process about ICANN's
>     > structures. If it is not now, it is never.
>     >
>     > parminder
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     >
>     > John Laprise, Ph.D.
>     > Consulting Scholar
>     >
>     > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>     <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>><http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplapri
>     <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplapri>
>     > se/>http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>     <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > From: parminder
>     > [<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
>     > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 2:57 AM
>     > To: John Laprise <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com>>
>     > <jlaprise at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com>><mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com>>; accountability-cross-
>     > community at icann.org
>     <mailto:community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>     > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and
>     Poll Results
>     >
>     > On Monday 19 December 2016 08:14 PM, John Laprise wrote:
>     >
>     > Possibilities of jurisdictional immunity? Could you please
>     provide examples of
>     > organizations that enjoy such.
>     >
>     > John
>     > The most well known case of jurisdictional immunity is of course for
>     > organisations incorporated under international law. Unlike what
>     has been
>     > argued here variously, although international law has to be made by
>     > governments through treaties etc that says nothing about the actual
>     > governance structure of the concerned organisation, ICANN in
>     this case.
>     > International law can, to take an extreme case, hand over complete
>     > governance of a body created/ incorporated under international
>     law to you
>     > and me... Nothing circumscribes how international law is written
>     as long as all
>     > countries agree to it. It is entirely possible, and I think
>     extremely plausible,
>     > that they would agree to write in such law the exact governance
>     structure of
>     > ICANN as it is at present. Right now too, ICANN exists by and
>     under the
>     > strength of its law of incorporation which is US law. In the
>     scenario I present,
>     > it would just be international law instead of US law. Yes, there
>     are matters to
>     > worked out in this regard, but if democracy and
>     self-determination of all
>     > people, equally, is of any importance at all, we can go through
>     the process,
>     > including doing the needed innovations as needed. The current
>     international
>     > system was not handed over to us by God, it was evolved by
>     people like us,
>     > who responded appropriately to newer and newer global
>     challenges, as the
>     > one that faces us now. To turn ones face away and say, nothing
>     can be done
>     > here, to evolve our democratic international systems, is to vote
>     for a status
>     > quo which serves some, but not others. And these are the others
>     that are
>     > protesting here, and seeking appropriate change. It is a
>     political issue, lets not
>     > treat it as a technical issue, of what is argued to be difficult
>     or too
>     > "troublesome" to pursue.
>     >
>     > Next, even without going the international law route, as has
>     been said many
>     > times earlier here, US law allows even non profits to be given
>     jurisdictional
>     > immunity. The concerned law is the United States International
>     Organisations
>     > Immunities Act<https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf
>     <https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf>> . And an
>     > example of a US non-profit being given jurisdiction immunity
>     under it is
>     > International Fertilizer and Development Center. This has been
>     discussed in a
>     > report commissioned by ICANN itself which can be found at
>     > https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html
>     <https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html> .
>     >
>     > I have been unable to understand why can we not agree to even
>     jurisdictional
>     > immunity under existing US law, which keeps ICANN in the US,
>     preserves its
>     > existing structures, and does go considerable way to address the
>     concerns
>     > about those who are concerned about application of US public law
>     on ICANN,
>     > and what it may mean for its global governance work.
>     >
>     > The argument is advanced that this may affect the operation of
>     the newly
>     > instituted community accountability mechanism. I dont think this
>     is not true.
>     > This mechanism is a matter of internal ICANN governance system,
>     which is a
>     > 'private' arrangement with choice of law available to it. It
>     simply has to be put
>     > in ICANN bylaws that ICANN governance processes will be subject to
>     > adjudication by Californian courts as present. That should do.
>     Of course the
>     > mentioned International Fertilizer and Development Centre also
>     must be
>     > existing with some governance systems, that admit of external
>     adjudication,
>     > even as it enjoys the benefit of jurisdictional immunity from US
>     public laws.
>     > Such immunity always only pertains to the policy and such
>     international core
>     > activities of the concerned organisation, and associated
>     matters. It would not,
>     > for instance, extend to actual crime being committed by its
>     personnel on its
>     > premises. All such matters of various distinctions get taken
>     care of when we
>     > enter the actual processes of such immunities etc. Right now,
>     the issue is only
>     > to decide to go down the route, or not.
>     >
>     > parminder
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     >
>     > John Laprise, Ph.D.
>     > Consulting Scholar
>     >
>     > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>     <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > From: accountability-cross-community-
>     > bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community->
>     > bounces at icann.org <mailto:bounces at icann.org>>
>     [mailto:accountability-cross-community-
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community->
>     > bounces at icann.org <mailto:bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of parminder
>     > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 7:10 AM
>     > To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-
>     <mailto:accountability-cross->
>     > community at icann.org <mailto: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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross->
>     > Community at icann.org <mailto:Community at icann.org>>
>     >
>     >
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-
>     > Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
>     > Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
>     > Community at icann.org <mailto:Community at icann.org>
>     >
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>     <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/20161227/397abf96/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list