[CCWG-ACCT] The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Parminder,

As an African, I would tend to agree with your point and wish that your
conclusion point was the case (as a reactive measure). However as you know,
we have discussed this extensively in the past (on different fora) and we
found that the means to the end of such is so complicated and the end
itself would ultimately create a govt lead ICANN which i certainly don't
want.

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 19 Jun 2016 07:28, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



On Sunday 19 June 2016 11:31 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:

I may have missed something, Parminder, but isn't it a plus rather than a
negative for ICANN accountability that process errors can be appealed and
the company held to account for them?


Jordan

In may make ICANN accountable, but to a system that is unaccountable to the
global public, and is only accountable to the US public (there could even
be cases where these two could be in partial conflict) - that in sum is the
jurisdiction issue. ICANN accountability issue is different, though linked,
bec it has to be accountable, but to the right system, which itself is
accountable to the global public. Different 'layers' of accountability are
implicated here, as people in IG space will like to say!

Here the issue is, a US court has no right to (exclusively) adjudicate the
rights of the African people, bec African people had no part in making or
legitimising the system that the US court is a part of. Dont you see what
problem we will be facing if the US court says that fairness of process or
whatever demands that .africa goes to DCA. If you were an African, what
would you feel?

An ICANN under international law will be subject to only an international
judicial process, which Africa is equally a part of, and gives legitimacy
to.

parminder



Jordan

On 19 June 2016 at 07:26, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday 19 June 2016 04:13 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa
> http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyers-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg%7Cd
>
>
> Not that this fact is being discovered now, but it still is the simplest
> and clearest proof that US jurisdiction over ICANN's policy processes and
> decisions is absolutely untenable. Either the US makes a special legal
> provision unilaterally foregoing judicial, legislative and executive
> jurisdiction over ICANN policy functions, or the normal route of ICANN's
> incorporation under international law is taken, making ICANN an
> international organisation under international law, and protected from US
> jurisdiction under a host country agreement.
>
> parminder
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter
Wellington, New Zealand

+64 21 442 649
jordan at jordancarter.org.nz



_______________________________________________
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/20160619/c9cdde04/attachment.html>