[Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Nigel
Thank you very much for your comments. Pls kindly describe your concerns in
a more comprehensive manner . What was the unfortunate approach?
Pls kindly recognize that some people residing in those countries under OFAC

sanctions are suffering a lot .we need to think of those people as well
internet plays a crucial role in their daily life thus any burden should be
shared.ICANN should avoid being politicized.

Regards

Kavouss



On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
wrote:

> 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 ican
>> n.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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170816/75538dcf/attachment.html>