[CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues

[parminder]

On Friday 30 December 2016 04:29 AM, John Laprise wrote:
>
> "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable
> accountability would do."
>
> This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until
> advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction
> acceptable to all,
>

For the present let me keep the possibility of international law's
jurisdiction apart, can you tell me how keeping ICANN as US non profit
but with jurisdictional immunities under US's International Orgs
Immunities Act is not a superior jurisdictional status that the current
one?

Acceptable to all, that is the interesting part; we wont have had
abolishing of slavery in the US if it awaited acceptance by all. A small
group benefiting form the status quo cannot hold the global public to
ransom. If it does insists in doing so, citing self-serving procedural
stuff, that the change will be forced to come from other, perhaps less
palatable, routes.... parminder

> the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and
> Parminder's objections noted.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Professor,
>     You put too much emphasis on private .
>     Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments
>     Regards
>     Kavouss
>
>     2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>     <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>
>         Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and
>         on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions
>
>          
>
>         MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me
>         fall off my horse.)
>
>          
>
>         can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not
>         involve national borders at all", without it implying an
>         agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US
>         jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders?
>
>          
>
>         MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through
>         private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of
>         the domain name system, it created a global governance agency
>         based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN
>         has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical
>         reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that
>         apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to
>         be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable
>         jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable
>         accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically
>         manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US
>         jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale
>         behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
>
>          
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161230/53a42c7d/attachment-0001.html>