[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 22 de jun de 2016, à(s) 16:39:000, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> escreveu:
> 
> So long as we have a common understanding of what would constitute “interference by the U.S. government” (of which there has been little to none since ICANN’s inception, with the possible exception of the delay in .xxx delegation to the root). I presume you are advocating deciding upon a process to address such an occurrence, rather than making a decision now about an alternate jurisdiction for a situation that may never arise, or occur decades from now.
>  
> I’ll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include interference in ICANN’s policymaking process (outside of advocacy within the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root zone, through methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.
>  
> I don’t think it should include private litigation brought against ICANN and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions, such as bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of illicit pricing decisions, or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.
>  

There is already litigation in California and federal courts that would compel changes in the root zone, like the litigation against the ccTLDs of Syria and Iran, or the current .africa litigation... so this interference of the US legal system within ICANN policy making process is already happening in some cases or imminent in others. 

 



Rubens






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160622/a0dbed9d/attachment.html>