[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Nigel Roberts]

And the redelegation of .US  . . . .


On 22/06/16 20:39, Phil Corwin wrote:
> 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.
>
> *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
>