[Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: US Jurisdiction over ICANN's activities that comply with GAC advice or that are otherwise based on powers or prerogatives recognised onto Governments under ICANN's multistakeholder governance model

[Nigel Roberts]

The term "ICANN's laws" does rather inflate its position, what?


As an asisde, I'm sure you will agree with me that ICANN does 
'legislate'. That's what PDPs are for example.

Indeed within the rule of law that ICANN is always subject to, ICANN has 
now a fairly well-developed separation of powers.

Legislature: gNSO and ccNSO (the latter, by design, quite rarely)
Executive: ICANN Board and staff, including Ombudman's office.
Judicial: The various IRP mechanisms as and when constituted.

ICANN now even has a special procedure for constituional legislation 
(changing ICANN's By-laws) which involves the consent of the whole 
Empowered Community.





On 22/08/17 23:46, Phil Corwin wrote:
> “or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as recognized under
> ICANN's laws”
>
>
>
> What? ICANN does not have any laws. ICANN is subject to law.
>
>
>
> Generally in agreement with Milton that this is a radical proposal with
> broad and worrisome implications.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172/Cell***
>
> * *
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bartlett Morgan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:38 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: US Jurisdiction over ICANN's
> activities that comply with GAC advice or that are otherwise based on
> powers or prerogatives recognised onto Governments under ICANN's
> multistakeholder governance model
>
>
>
> +1 Milton's comment
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2017 5:47 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> Thiago
>
> If I understand what you are saying here, I have to totally reject it,
> and I suspect most others in this group will.
>
> What you seem to be saying here:
>
>
>
> Proposed solution: ICANN shall establish a compulsory dispute settlement
> mechanism, or commit to have recourse to international arbitration, for
> disputes relating to ICANN's activities that have been the subject of
> GAC advice or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as
> recognized under ICANN's laws.
>
>
>
> …is that GAC advice should supersede the normal ICANN bottom up
> multistakeholder policy development process (BUMP) and be subject to a
> special dispute resolution procedure that applies to ICANN and GAC alone.
>
>
>
> This is a brazen power play to redesign ICANN in a way that transforms
> it into an intergovernmental institution. It ain’t ever going to happen,
> Thiago, except perhaps in your dreams.
>
>
>
> Let me add that “independent accountability mechanisms” such as the IRP
> and the empowered community process already exist and no changes need to
> me made based on jurisdictional issues. Those mechanisms are not subject
> to arbitrary interference from the USG based on ICANN’s jurisdiction.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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
>