[Ws2-jurisdiction] Domain names 'located' within the US

[icannlists]

I agree with Nigel.  I have no particular desire to see a move of ICANN outside of the US speed ICANN's demise.

Best,
Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:57 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Domain names 'located' within the US

Parminder

I feel this continued flagellation of deceased members of the genus Equus is getting somewhat repetitive.

But I'll give this another shot, for the sheer fun of it.

The courts of ANY other country in which ICANN would or should be iincorporated would have exactly the same superior and exclusive rights in theory.

It may be so (that just as an example) Swiss law, and jurisdiction might have been more acceptable as ICANN's seat to many countries which are antipathetic to the United States.  I fact I argued for Switzerland during the IFWP, so you can be assured I have been conscious of this issue for over 20 years.

But complaining that ICANN is subject to US courts is just a "two legs bad, four legs good" comparison.

The essential factors are a mature jurisdiction in a country that runs on the Rule of Law.

As you know, we are where we are because of a number of historical factors, including where Saint Jon lived and worked, and (in my mildly cynical view) clever manoeuvres by certain key players back in 1998. (Hi Becky!).

But ICANN would have to have been incorporated SOMEWHERE.

There is no way round this, unless you set your face (as I get the impression you may have done) against the whole concept of multistakeholder management of internet names and numbers, and propose that ICANN should exist as a multilateral organisation, such as the United Nations.

Those of use who have spent several decades advocating for multistakeholderism would, respectfully, hold a different view.



Nigel



> Thiago's email describes cases which clearly show that US public
> policies, law and courts have a superior and somewhat exclusive right to
> direct ICANN's actions, over that or any other jurisdiction
> (representing the corresponding country's sovereign will). This goes to
> the heart of the jurisdiction question that is the mandate of this
> group. This is unjust, and not acceptable, and therefore this group must
> look at options that are more just to everyone.
>
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.