[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[parminder]

On Sunday 26 June 2016 07:08 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Parminde
>
> If you believe that the law is largely political, then you are
> professing that you do not believe in the Rule of Law.

This is an absolute stunner! I really do not know what you understand
with 'political' which surprises me even more since you have had a long
career in the government. Were in your country the law of the 'rule of
law' made by by anyone other than that political parliament!? Law comes
from a due process out of a political community, which then is bound by
it. Or, are in your views society's laws  like the laws of physics, a
given natural reality - which would then make then 'technical' and not
'political'.

> And that sets your views at odds with the multistakeholderism which
> most of us have been building for 20 years.

If multistakeholderism is about depoliticing laws and rules of our
collective governance, I stand in full opposition to it.
depoliticisation is de-democratization, making laws as some kind of
natural reality, which is but a convenient cover to impose the will of
the elite over the society. This is not the place to go into
political-democratic theoty discourses, but your claims, and a similar
subsequent one by Andrew, does surprise me a lot.
>
> You do not have to be a lawyer to participate constructively, but you
> do have believe in rule by laws (rules), NOT rule by men (people).

Rile of law as replacing rule of men was meant as replacing arbitrary
rule of feudal lords and other feudal authorities in the feudal age.
This is however the first time I am hearing that the term 'political' is
synonymous with that kind of feudal power structure. The Brexit and the
ensuing political rumblings/events in your country arent political?! I
am sure Nigel you are going to revise a comment you seem to be made in
unthinking haste.

>
> Therefore ICANN needs to be in a jurisdiction which is under the rule
> of law,

Well, in fact, I do now-a-days hear comments that directly or indirectly
place rule of law in opposition to democracy and politics... I have a
well developed explanation of this post-democratic phenomenon, but that
some time else.  Meanwhile I do see with interest, if regret, the issue
of ICANN jurisdiction being placed in this post-democratic matrix. But
then, there is simply no way to defend continued unilateral US
jurisdiction on ICANN in any kind of democratic way....

BTW, Nigil ,I do note that you did not care to respond to the two direct
questions I posted to you about the problems with current jurisdiction
status of ICANN, even though I answered all your questions. Do you
intend to ?

parminder

> where access to remedies does not have high barriers political
> influence on the judiciary is at a minimum.
>
> California's not where I suggested it be, back in 1998.
>
> But it will do.
>
>
> On 26/06/16 14:01, parminder wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 26 June 2016 06:08 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>> You construct law as something fully technical when it actually is
>>> basically political, that is the major difference between your
>>> approach and mine.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>