[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction

[avri doria]

Not sure where this conversation is being held.

This is a comment on the subject that I sent to the Jurisdiction list
(with typos corrected)


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document
Date: 	Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:10:38 +0900
From: 	avri doria <avri at acm.org>
Reply-To: 	avri at acm.org
To: 	ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org



Hi,

As a part time staff member for APC, which signed the letter, I figure I
should add my 2 cents.

I do not believe the object is to undo the work of WS1 and the
establishment of the EC under California rules. That is not an APC goal
and I do not think the letter proposes that.  But I do believe we need
to look at some of the other issues.

For example the one that persists to bother me and APC, is the fact
that the US can make laws that prohibit ICANN/IANA from doing business
with particular countries, whether it is because of boycott or other
international reasons.  I know we say that has never happened, though
there may be some arguments about whether it did or not, but it could
happen. Another issue is that given the removal of US oversight, the US
government commitment made in WSIS and elsewhere to never interfere in
IANA relationship with ccTLDs is meaningless. Does this commitment
still hold in the current jurisdictional mix if the US government passed
laws or made administrative decisions? These are the sorts of
things I think we need to find a answer/solution to.  So when I look at
the notion of 'immunity' that is the sort I look for.   Not that I
believe this can be easily achieved. Personally, I do not want to see
IANA (the core of the issue and the Internet) prohibited from making a
change because of US law, now or ever.

I do not believe we can, or even should resolve this in WS2, but we
should be aware of these problems and WS2 should recommend that further
work after WS2, perhaps, be done to make sure that  these and another
types of errant US control are not possible.  I am personally not
looking for relief from the courts on contractual, accountability or EC
issues as that is currently part of the accountability solution, and we
have yet to see whether that works. It is going to take a few years
before we have evidence on the WS1 solution being effective.  But I
wonder, must that always be US courts, are there other solutions for
some of these court challenges, especially those more applicable to the
nationals of other nations. I think there are issues we can't ignore.

So collecting the issues and figuring out what further
discussion/work needs to be done on them is something that needs to be
remembered and dealt with in WS2. Hence my agreement with the fact that
a letter was sent indicating that there were concerns that need to be
discussed and dealt with. The solution proposed in the letter where just
possible avenues to explore, and even if they are impractical, we should
not ignore any open issues that people might have.


avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus