[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.]

Dear Phil,

I can´t fully follow your segmentation

> 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.

Agree
>
> 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,

why not? Who is going to hear the case set liabilities and eventually 
compensation????

> or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.

Agree
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of 
> Mueller, Milton L
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM
> To: Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 
> 06/21/16
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community