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

[John Laprise]

Agreed. As a legal entity, ICANN requires a binding set of laws to exist
within. 

Fish can argue about the quality of the water, but they need it all the
same.

Best regards, 

John Laprise, Ph.D.
Principal Consultant

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/




-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:36 PM
To: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>; Nigel Roberts
<nigel at channelisles.net>; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Domain names 'located' within the US

Chiming in to agree, ICANN will always be subject in some degree to the laws
of its nation of incorporation more than others, but that is irrelevant
unless those laws interfere with its technical and policymaking functions in
a way that is consistently prejudicial to other nations and the community
members who reside in them. The GAC is well equipped to speak out for those
nations should such a situation ever arise.

As Nigel noted, the only way to avoid that would be to convert ICANN from a
multistakeholder organization led by the private sector, civil society and
academia to a multilateral one controlled by governments. That "solution" is
anathema to the overwhelming majority of the ICANN community.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of icannlists
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:13 PM
To: Nigel Roberts; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Domain names 'located' within the US

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.
_______________________________________________
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