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

[parminder]

On Thursday 29 December 2016 10:24 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Parminder,
>
> I am having trouble making sense of your message below. When you use
> verbal constructs like “I havent seen not only no attempt to explore
> ways to stop such influence by you,” I can only smile and ask you to
> untie the knots in your words (or thinking?) and rephrase the question
> more clearly.
>

Milton
I have no problem in making it clearer to you, as long as you would then
actually respond to the issue.

When you say, "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 just wanted to know what do you propose to do about this clearly
identified jurisdiction problem?

Further, if going down an international treaty route is problematic for
you, do you think jurisdictional immunity under the International
Organisations Immunities Act is a good way to address this
jurisdictional problem?

parminder

>  
>
> 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.
>
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161229/91a64521/attachment.html>