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

Sun Aug 20 10:12:28 UTC 2017

I see you apologise for my sensitivity to the suggestion I am lying but 
not for making the suggestion itself. I find that really quite 
mealy-mouthed.

I invite you, please, to clearly withdraw the use of the offensive word 
"falsehood" which is clearly outwith the standards of behaviour to expected.

It seems to me that either

(a) you meant to suggest that my assessment is inaccurate and/or my 
opinion is incorrect or

(b) you are intentionally stating that I am propagating falsehoods (i.e. 
telling fibs, lies etc).

Which is it?

>
> 1. Falsehood, fib, lie, untruth refer to something untrue or incorrect. A falsehood is a statement that distorts or suppresses the truth, in order to deceive: to tell a falsehood about one's ancestry in order to gain acceptance. A fib denotes a trivial falsehood, and is often used to characterize that which is not strictly true: a polite fib. A lie is a vicious falsehood: to tell a lie about one's neighbor.
>
>
> On 20/08/17 10:34, parminder wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:34, parminder wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:34, parminder wrote:>
>
> On Sunday 20 August 2017 02:24 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>> Your arguments are starting to be worthy of the level of discourse
>> currently obtaining in the USA. And I would be reticent at using
>> defamatory words such as 'falsehood' (a synonum of "lie").
>
> It is a falsehood that if provided immunity ICANN can "do whatever it
> likes", the expression you used. But I apologize if the term offends you.
>
> I see below that for ICANN's actions regarding root zone youd like them
> to be subject to US law. This is what I object to. And herein lies the
> difference.
>
> You want everything to be subject to rule-of-law. I too am a great
> votary of rule of law. But it seems that it does not matter to you
> whether the law in a particular case is collectively determined by those
> who are subject to it or not, or in other words, whether a law is
> democratic or not. You just want some law that meets your subjective
> standards (I hear US, Swiss, UK laws mentioned, but alas no poor under
> developed country! So here we are!), no matter who makes such law, and
> what kind of polity stands behind it. This is a very technical approach
> to law, and mine is a democratic approach.... That, is the key
> difference here, and perhaps is at an ideological level, and thus
> irreconcilable.
>
> But let me know if I misrepresent your views and approach.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>> It is my submission and I will not stop "propagating" it (i.e.
>> advocating for it) simply becuase one person denies it.
>>
>> You are setting up a straw man, labelling it ming and then knocking it
>> down. Nowhere did I refer to immunity being in respect of everything
>> ICANN does (although that IS the Vienna Convention model in respect of
>> the missions of foreign states)
>>
>> Supposing ICANN (PTI) gets immunity from liability for anything it
>> does in respect of changes to the IANA database. It will then "be able
>> to do anything it likes" in terms of redelegations without the
>> affected parties having recourse to law.
>>
>> And as we've seen with .XXX, .AFRICA and more latterly .AMAZON,
>> sometimes ICANN's internal mechanisms need to be held up to external
>> account and scrutiny.
>>
>> And the second straw man is the myth of parental control. ICANN had
>> this until last year, by virtue of USG's control of the IANA contract.
>>
>> By and large (and there WAS occasional unsatisfactory parenting
>> behviour) that 'parenting' was one of benign neglect, allowing ICANN
>> to make its own mistakes and grow.
>>
>> But that's gone now. ICANN stands on its own two feet as a
>> non-govenmental, non-profit organisation, which must be accountable to
>> the law of whichever land it is established in.
>>
>> It happens to be established in the US. I have a number of
>> reservations about the legal system of the US.
>>
>> In the IFWP in 1998-1999 I argued for Geneva but it quickly became
>> apparent that wasn't going to happen. I would also be very happy with
>> London or some other jurisdiction that is well developed for (just as
>> an example) maritime or aviation law.
>>
>> But it is where it is. And we are repeating ourselves.
>>
>> I submit that ICANN must be within the law of whichever jurisdiction
>> it operates in and that principle means "no immunity from law".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/08/17 09:21, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday 20 August 2017 01:14 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>> 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".
>>>
>>> This is simply not true, it a falsehood and Id appeal to you to stop
>>> propagating it. Apart from that we should have faith in ICANN's own
>>> governance model, I have argued repeatedly that immunity for ICANN can
>>> be tailored precisely so that it largely covers its core functions and
>>> not just everything that ICANN does. Again referring tothis ICANN report
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf>
>>>
>>> where the concept of functional immunity ("immunity concerns activities
>>> immediately or directly related to the performance of tasks entrusted to
>>> the organization"), immunity waivers, etc are discussed in detail,
>>> although in a somewhat different context.
>>>
>>> The report shows how immunity can be tailored to cover largely just the
>>> core functions of an organisation, and the organisation can itself waive
>>> its immunities in many regards.... So, please count your problem areas,
>>> and we can seek immunity waiver in those areas, financial frauds, labor
>>> laws, which ones?
>>>
>>> And if it is your case that ICANN's own governance system is inadequate
>>> to even performing its core functions properly, and there is a risk that
>>> it could go rouge even with respect to them, and therefore it needs
>>> parental guidance/ control from the state of US, that precisely is my
>>> problem, and not acceptable to me and most of the world. Although I
>>> remain amazedat your description , as an ICANN insider, of the state of
>>> ICANN governance and responsibility. It is quote worthy.
>>>
>>> One would have hoped that in all these years ICANN had evolved a
>>> governance and accountability system that did not allow it "to do
>>> whatever it likes" but it seems that your testimony is that this is not
>>> the case, and its need oversight by the US state to check its abuse of
>>> powers. Pity!
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>