[CCWG-ACCT] 2nd reading of jurisdiction sub group report

[John Laprise]

Speaking as a member, I listened but my disagreement was not motivated by
prejudice. I simply found your positions lacked sufficient merit.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 4:24 PM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Greg
>
> It is unfortunate that among the few and very weak arguments that you put
> forward today in the f3f meeting about why customised immunity was never
> officially discussed in the sub-group you said that this was because it was
> offered as remedy without showing the issues that it addressed.... This, as
> I said during the meeting, is a shockingly false statement, and I said that
> I would provide evidence for it. You came back and stood by your statement.
> And so, the evidence as I promised is below.
>
> You set up a google doc on influence of existing jurisdiction on ICANN
> (link to it follows) to collect the issues that needed to be addressed,
> right.... One of the first entries made on it was mine, and it was
> extensively commented upon (most extensively by yourself).... This was
> close to the start of the process, near the middle of 2016. The entry on
> various issues I made was as follows.
>
> (cut paste form the doc begins)
>
>
>    1.
>
>    A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its
>    policies –like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of
>    registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change
>    its actions.
>    2.
>
>    Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing,
>    or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves
>    country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's
>    policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other
>    country (or countries).
>    3.
>
>    An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of
>    ICANN with entities in specific countries.
>    4.
>
>    FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication
>    infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to
>    be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what
>    it thinks is the interest of the US public.
>    5.
>
>    US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN
>    to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which
>    these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property
>    laws.
>    6.
>
>    A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma,
>    transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement
>    that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these
>    sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other
>    principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change
>    the agreement, and conditions under it.
>
> (ENDS)
>
> This entry with many comments is still visible in this doc that you
> developed,
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit
>
> All these are directly issues that point towards customised immunity as
> the remedy -- and lest there be any doubt the connection was explicitly
> made in group's email discussions. Many of these issues were again
> underlined by a statement made, in Nov 2016 at Hyderabad ICANN, by nearly
> all Indian NGOs active in IG area and supported by two largest global
> coalitions in this area. Pl see
> http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf
> . The statement connects these issues to customised immunity as a possible
> remedy, providing full details. This statement was posted on sub -group's
> list and discussed. Then during the public comment period (response to the
> questionnaire, pl see the corresponding ICANN page) many inputs once again
> raised important issues and linked them to customized immunity as a
> possible solution....
>
> It is most shocking now at the end of the process to hear from the sub
> group's chair that customised immunity was always being proposed  without
> showing the issues that it could remedy -- AND THAT WAS THE REASON IT NEVER
> GOT AN OFFICIAL SLOT FOR DISCUSSION.
>
> Greg, you must either disprove what I am saying here, and saying it with
> documented evidence, or withdraw your statement that undermines the large
> amount of work that so many of us did, and indeed the whole sub group's
> working..... We cannot let such false statements to be recorded as the
> historical records of this group's work, and the transcript of today's f2f
> meeting is supposed to go as a record annexed to the final report..
>
> Our problem is; there was just too much prejudice, and people, including
> prominently the process heads/ chairs, were simply not listening to many
> us, they were tuned out even before the deliberative process begun!! This
> is not a consultative and participative process, this is something made to
> look like one....
>
> Look forward to your response
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> sss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171027/73c663bb/attachment-0001.html>