[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Nigel Roberts]

I don't think that is entirely settled.

What is your legal authority for the proposition?

On 22/06/16 22:30, Phil Corwin wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own ccTLD.
>
> ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn't decide who performs technical and other  operations for a given ccTLD.
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:11 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16
>