[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Mueller, Milton L]

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]

>possible exception of the delay in .xxx delegation to the root).

MM: POSSIBLE exception?!? I would say a campaign to get NTIA to deny authorizing its entry in the root by a religious group that was a key supporter of the Bush administration, a complete 180 degree turnaround in the position of NTIA, a phone call from the Asst Secretary of Commerce, and the subsequent change in ICANN’s board vote clearly constituted political interference in the policy making process. The refusal of many people to acknowledge that this happened is the kind of willful blindness that fosters mistrust of America’s role in ICANN. There is another example, involving the IANA contract, but I won’t describe it because the IANA contract is no longer a factor.

PC: 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.

MM: good definition. We are generally talking about policy-motivated interference that exploits US jurisdiction

PC I don’t think it should include private litigation brought against ICANN and heard in state or federal court;

MM: agree

PC or law enforcement actions

MM: that depends. Antitrust could be ok but I could think of other LEA actions that might constitute interference

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

MM: of course.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160623/c1e84bcb/attachment.html>