[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN

[Nigel Roberts]

On 20/08/17 04:09, parminder wrote:

 >> . And don't you think it would then make ICANN /less /accountable?
 > Maybe less accountable to US public, but more accountable to the global

Well, our organisation is not a part of the US public, but the global.

Nonetheless we strongly think that immunity would make ICANN less 
accountable to the global public interest. So we fundamentally disagree.

Any form of immunity would once again mean ICANN Board and/or staff 
would return to the approach of the early 2000s when (to use a phrase in 
common use among a number of my colleagues in the ccTLD world) "they do 
whatever they like".

And I have personal knowledge of such things: one company I was involved 
in the very early days of the Internet was directly and most seriously 
affected (the company no longer exists, pretty much as a result)  by 
ICANN acting (we would have said) without any proper legal basis in US 
law. They were, in fact, at the behest of a **non**US (or "foreign") 
governmental entity.

At that time ICANN was partially "protected" by being, in effect a state 
actor (i.e. ICANN merely "recommended" certain actions to another party, 
who then acted under US Government contract). The affected party was a 
start-up with limited resources to bring suit anyway, irrespective of 
the Governmental connextion and the company consequently had to close down.

Personally I welcome the change to ICANN becoming a purely private body 
(something I've been working for since 1999), and would oppose any 
proposals or suggestion to immunise it.

But you fail to take this reasoned, and reasonable, view into account 
when you repeat your clamour for ICANN to be given one or more "get- 
out-of-gaol-free cards".






On 20/08/17 04:09, parminder wrote:

>> . And don't you think it would then make ICANN /less /accountable?
> Maybe less accountable to US public, but more accountable to the global