[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Mueller, Milton L]

In the reflexive approach, you would ask "what are the institutional mechanisms or procedures to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be addressed in an adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer tenable, however rare it may it?" In the absolute rarest of rare cases that the US legislature or judiciary try to interfere with community decisions (the black swan scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this interference is contained/minimised? What are the institutional mechanisms or procedures for addressing the situation where the US (or any other) jurisdiction is no longer hospitable/ideal for the ICANN policymaking or IANA functions? These are the questions that we should be asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.

MM: I think this is a good point. Even advocates of US jurisdiction or those who, like me, think there is just no better alternative and that the disruption and risks caused by a change are not worth the uncertain improvements, can easily agree that there should be procedures or plans for how to respond to interference by the U.S. government.


Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160622/29554c76/attachment.html>