[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Rubens

I think the interference in .ir and Syria case is quite different from
.africa. , .In .ir  case the claimant had a judgment against iran which it
had obtained through the us courts relying on US laws and wanted to enforce
the judgement through attaching .ir  to the claimant. I call that
interference. In .africa two competing organizations have a dispute over
the delegation of .africa. I am not sure if we can compare the two.
On 22 Jun 2016 22:14, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160622/48d862b6/attachment.html>