<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 19 June 2016 10:56 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:57662CFE.9030305@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 19 June 2016 04:13 AM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMQYSQf374kdwcbAm7Uzi_JN6hwHpLqzeaVevoeC9gxWdfKOXg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble
for .africa <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyers-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg%7Cd">http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyers-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg%7Cd</a></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not that this fact is being discovered now, but it still is the
simplest and clearest proof that US jurisdiction over ICANN's
policy processes and decisions is absolutely untenable. Either the
US makes a special legal provision unilaterally foregoing
judicial, legislative and executive jurisdiction over ICANN policy
functions, or the normal route of ICANN's incorporation under
international law is taken, making ICANN an international
organisation under international law, and protected from US
jurisdiction under a host country agreement. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
While the democratic logic of this should be self-evident, that the
global public cannot be made subject to laws and judicial processes
that it took no part in shaping (I call it 'no legislation without
representation') let me still explain further the inherent risk in
this specific kind of situation. Were it the issue of a US state,
say, Arizona, and .Arizona, was in similar dispute, a US court will
be *primarily* concerned with the larger public/ community interest
involved, and pay particular attention to what the Economist
describes as "regional names that are, in a sense, a virtual
commons", as it weighs that claim against the procedural fairness
demands of US contract law, non profit incorporation law, and so on.
However, if the 'region' and the 'public' involved is non US, as in
this case, the attention to the technicalities of the latter aspects
of US laws vis a vis the wider ' (non US) public interest and claim'
can easily be expected to be very different. And this is absolutely
wrong, and unacceptable.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:57662CFE.9030305@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMQYSQf374kdwcbAm7Uzi_JN6hwHpLqzeaVevoeC9gxWdfKOXg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Paul Rosenzweig</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>