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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 23 August 2017 11:52 AM, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
> snip
>
> As I mentioned before, immunity in international law is slowly going
> to be reduced to necessity (a very difficult process); thus pragmatic
> work on non-interference (e.g. some partial immunity) should be the goal.
>
As argued earlier, practically every public law of the US could impact
ICANN's global governance processes. It is simply not possible to seek
exemptions from each of them one by one. In most cases, there is no
process for obtaining exemptions.

Therefore, a positive list of legal exemptions will never work for ICANN
- -that is in fact a most impractical, or rather impossible, task. Only
a negative list of exclusions from a general immunity under the IOI Act
will work.

> A general OFAC licence may be the first (and not the last) example.
> Other important work has to be done in courts that they accept ICANN’s
> special status.
>

Courts are not going to accept or consider any special status for ICANN
unless there is a specific legislative provision to that effect.
Otherwise they are supposed to, and will, treat ICANN as just another US
non profit, subject to all US laws and state authorities. Incidental
facts related to an organisation involved in a particular case, like
ICANN, are considered only at a peripheral level after all the
provisions and needs of laid down law are considered, and not before
them. Do you as a lawyer contradict this political -legal fact?

parminder


> Best, Erich
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *Von: *Mueller, Milton L <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>
> *Gesendet: *Montag, 21. August 2017 15:02
> *An: *Nigel Roberts <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Betreff: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: RES: RES: ISSUE - unilateral
> jurisdiction of one country over ICANN
>
>  
>
> We formulate it as a collateral damage argument. The DNS root is an
> essential facility to the functioning of the global Internet, and it
> is better for people in a sanctioned country (most of whom are
> innocent parties) to have Internet access. Taking away Internet access
> harms the general public more than it harms the sanction targets.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:29 AM
> > To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: RES: RES: ISSUE - unilateral
> jurisdiction of
> > one country over ICANN
> >
> > It was a genuine comment.
> >
> > If you are making an application for a General Licence you will have to
> > formulate it quite differently than "we don't like the USA foreign
> policy" since
> > it is the USA that will accept or decline the application.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21/08/17 12:52, parminder wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday 21 August 2017 04:58 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> > >> I'm sure that formulation will go down well on the OFAC General
> > >> License application form, and with Ted Cruz .  . .
> > >
> > > Nigel, I will respectfully urge you to give up your cryptic one
> > > liners, most of which we from the non english non-western world are
> > > unable to understand. Neither does the sarcasm contained therein
> > > contribute to what is a very serious exercise of global responsibility
> > > that we are trying to undertake here. Please be very clear and
> > > explicit in whatever you want to say, and try simple and plain
> > > english, with fewer idioms and situated facts rooted in western
> culture.....
> > >
> > > As for what I understand from your above remark, if your suggestion is
> > > that we, of the non US world, play nice and deferential to every quirk
> > > and detail of the US nation and state, let me make it very clear that
> > > I have no such intention. I much respect the US nation and state, but
> > > then so do I respect every other country, and the democratic rights of
> > > their citizens.
> > >
> > > parminder
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 21/08/17 12:08, parminder wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Monday 21 August 2017 04:29 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> > >>>> And what will ICANN then be immune from?
> > >>>
> > >>> Milton put it nicely, to quote, "...from the vagaries of U.S.
> > >>> foreign policy or other laws and policies that would circumvent
> > >>> ICANN's accountability to its global MS community."
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170823/3f43f21a/attachment-0001.html>