[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

can you please get this Parminder back onto message? Perhaps a timeout is warranted.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c

> On 27 Jun 2016, at 11:16, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community