[Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity

[Nigel Roberts]

I must take the opportunity to highlight that a number of ccTLDs may 
object to any form of immunity for ICANN and/or PTI.

Some of us still remember the early days of ICANN, and while we trust 
the current management and Board, we do not want there to be a 
possibility that a future set of incumbents could return that 
unfortunate approach.


On 16/08/17 12:47, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I propose to work on the issue on partial immunity. The core functions of ICANN should not be only decided by the multi-stakeholder community, covering legislation, administration and dispute settlement.
> States (and International Organisations) should refrain from exercising its concurrent jurisdiction, respecting ICANN's special role and governance model.
> As quick and clear solutions are not easily at hand (e.g. unilateral acceptance of immunity by States or a treaty), problems of interference of States should be settled by negotations or judicial dicisions, depending on the relevant jurisdiction (e.g. OFAC). This solution is cumbersome but may result in sufficient immunity of ICANN, being in line of present international policy of restricting immunities for international entities.
> Argumentation could be diverse, e.g. granting partial immunity for ICANN's special role or no interference in third party rights. Administrations and courts must accept that only the multi-stakeholder model is the appropriate forum for such questions.
>
>
>   Best, Erich
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] im Auftrag von Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 12. August 2017 01:13
> An: ws2-jurisdiction
> Cc: Thomas Rickert
> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward
>
> Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
>
> As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until 11 October to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
>
> In other words, we have about 8 weeks to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
>
> Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
>
> I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
>
> To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
>
>
>    *   Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:
>       *   Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues
>       *   Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum
>       *   Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).
>       *   Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]
>       *   The sooner, the better
> I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of 16 August and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
>
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>