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

[Nigel Roberts]

That's for background information.

As you know, all litigation requires huge resources (both financial and 
human), and that's no different whether it's ICANN or anyone else as 
Defendant.

But providing immunity would allow ICANN "to do whatever it likes".

Not on my watch.

On 20/08/17 07:42, parminder wrote:
> Nigel
> 
> Your principal contention is that ICANN's own governance processes are 
> (by your account, pathetically) inadequate to ensure against rogue 
> behaviour. And yes you have been consistent in making this argument.
> 
> That surprises me coming for an ICANN insider. One would well ask, why 
> when a UN body, OECD, WIPO, WTO, and many non profits enjoying 
> immunities like I have given examples of can resist becoming rogue cant 
> ICANN too do so? Is all the charade of an unprecedented and exemplary 
> multistakeholder mode of governance of ICANN really not working, neither 
> is it workable? And when you guys were presented with the option of a 
> more accountable membership based model you guys rejected it last year. 
> Why so?
> 
> If ICANN's own governance structures are not adequate and proper, work 
> on them, rather than working against, like in rejecting the membership 
> model. Dont seek tutelage of undemocratic powers. If indeed you cant 
> work without oversight, lets devise a good democratic method of 
> oversight which is representative of the whole world, and not just that 
> already most powerful of the countries, the US. No, this is hegemony, 
> this is abject surrender and subjection. This is no way to conduct a 
> global political discourse. Goes back to the nice old adage: you cant 
> have your cake and eat it -- celebrate ICANN as a world beating 
> governance model, and also claim, no it is not adequate to stop ICANN 
> from going rogue, and needs parental control. Choose your side!
> 
> Parminder
> 
> PS: BTW, I dont really understand the below case study you often hint 
> at.. It seems that the company went broke bec it could not bring a suit 
> against ICANN, did not have the resources etc to do so... But then, I 
> dont see what has changed now, and how would it be any better now. 
> Please do be very clear what case are you making.
> 
> 
> On Sunday 20 August 2017 11:51 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>
>> 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 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>