[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Nigel Roberts]

Just like traditional Afrikaaner dance moves

Lang arrrrrrm jurisdiction . . . . .



On 22/06/16 21:59, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> Greg is correct.  But ICANN also can be sued even in places where it
> does not have offices, if its actions are deemed to have sufficient
> effects in such jurisdictions.  France, for example, has become
> notorious for allowing suits against foreign companies based on their
> internet services accessible in France -- but France is far from alone,
> and indeed our jurisdictional principles in the US maintain this same
> concept.
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Lawsuits in US courts are not "interference of the United States,"
>     unless the United States is the plaintiff.  In the US, courts are
>     limited to hearing disputes between private parties.  The US courts
>     do not (as in some jurisdictions) have any proactive, prosecutorial
>     or investigative powers. (In limited circumstances, in the context
>     of an actual litigation, the court can appoint experts, but that's
>     about as far as that goes.)
>
>     The cases Rubens cites are disputes between private parties or
>     between a private party and ICANN.  The US court is the forum for
>     those disputes.  This is not "interference of the United States."
>
>     If ICANN were located in another jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's
>     courts would be hearing these disputes.  Notably, ICANN is subject
>     to being sued in other countries where it has offices, so there are
>     already alternatives if plaintiffs want to find a different venue in
>     which to seek redress.  While this is a possibility, I believe all
>     plaintiffs that have sued ICANN have done so in the US.  This may
>     say something about the appeal of the US as a jurisdiction for
>     resolving disputes.
>
>     Greg
>
>     On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br
>     <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:
>
>
>>         Em 22 de jun de 2016, à(s) 16:39:000, Phil Corwin
>>         <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>         Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>         <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>