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

[Nigel Roberts]

Jordan
'
What you say is 100% correct.

But is 100% irrelevant to the point the article makes.

Which is that Africa once again - this time in cyberspace - is subject 
to the ultimate authority of the judiciary of a 'colonial power'.

The history of the Dominions, such as Canada, Australia and NZ and their 
evolution into independent nations between the mid-19th century, and 
reaching full independence in the 1980s was such a gradual and 
non-violent process that it might be hard for me and you to understand 
the symbolism and sensitivities fully.

Of course there always needs to be a judicial tribunal where process 
errors in international contracts can be appealed. In shipping, this is 
commonly London/English law, NY/New York law, or Cairo.

Personally I think that the California courts are quite well placed to 
keep ICANN on the straight and narrow, much as I myself think London 
would be better.

But, it seems to me, from the point of view of Africa, no matter what 
the technical (i.e. legal) advantages in the Rule of Law, the optics are 
unfortunate, and that appears to be the point of the article.




On 19/06/16 07:01, 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
>
> On 19 June 2016 at 07:26, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto: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 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Wellington, New Zealand
>
> +64 21 442 649
> jordan at jordancarter.org.nz <mailto: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
>