[Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity

Tue Jun 27 01:43:39 UTC 2017

Fazaneh +1

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:  <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of farzaneh badii
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 8:01 AM
To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity

Parminder,

Before this group came about, the concrete issues that domain name registrants and registries and DNS customers in general faced due to ICANN jurisdiction were not even known by those insisting on discussing ICANN's US incorporation and its relocation. We are not fighting imperialism here. We are here to know the issues and come up with solutions. 

I kindly ask you not to undermine the process. This is not the first time you did this and it will affect those who actually are facing issues if the process is perceived as illegitimate.

I have said before that the issue of immunity should be on the table and we should look into see if it can be a solution to the problems we raise, without making the ICANN accountability mechanisms ineffective. That could be partial immunity with regards to some of ICANN's function etc. I don't know. But we are here to discuss this. The co-chair has clarified his intention and his decision. I don't think it is really fruitful to keep undermining the process and delaying the discussion on substantive issues we want to tackle.

Thanks 

Farzaneh

Farzaneh 

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:06 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> > wrote:

On Sunday 25 June 2017 12:50 PM, avri doria wrote:
> But he corrected his statement after being reminded of the issue of
> partial or tailored immunity. I am grateful he did so.  What is
> important to me is that it was corrected.  There are so many issues, sub
> issues and nuances, that I do not expect any chair to get it right all
> the time.  What I do expect is for corrections to be made when
> necessary. And that is what, I believe, happened.
>
> I do not see this as a cover-up but rather a proper and timely correction.
>
> In fact, in a group with archived lists, I have trouble understanding
> any of this in such harsh terms such as "cover up".

It wont be a cover up if the strong protests on the procedural aspects
of the Chair's decision (all on record, as you say) are treated and
responded to independently, and not, well, "covered up" in the chair and
group focussing in this meeting simply on some specific substantive
elements of the decision alone.

As for "harsheness", there are many harshnesses going around, like one
of the main political issues of legitimacy and accountability of ICANN
as a global governance body - the issue of its US incorporation -- being
swept aside by a single sudden diktat of the chair.

parminder

>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 25-Jun-17 08:18, parminder wrote:
>> On Friday 23 June 2017 02:58 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> As previously mentioned, we will address the issue of the procedural decision the co-chairs took during our meeting at ICANN59 in detail.
>>>
>>> However, given the ongoing debate on the list, let me please offer a clarification on one aspect of what I said and, more importantly, what was not said.
>>>
>>> The co-chairs established that
>>>
>>> 1. Relocalization of ICANN to another jurisdiction and
>>> 2. Making ICANN an immune organization
>>>
>>> were suggestions that did not get sufficient traction to be further pursued.
>>>
>>> I did not speak to the question of partial immunity.
>> Thomas, Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the
>> liberty to highlight relevant parts.
>>
>>     We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take
>>     California jurisdiction as a base line for all its
>>     recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations
>>     to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of
>>     headquarters*or seek immunity for ICANN*.  With this decision we
>>     are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be
>>     consensus for*an immunity based concept* or a change of place of
>>     incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this
>>     call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction.
>>     Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said
>>     during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might
>>     arise during the deliberations.  But that we actually focus on the
>>     status quo being California law and place of incorporation. and
>>     work on solutions that are founded on this.
>>
>>
>> (quote ends)
>>
>> You clearly removed discussions and possible recommendations on "an
>> immunity based concept", which evidently includes everything related
>> to possible immunities, that phrase seems specifically tailored to
>> cover anything that included the concept of immunity - partial
>> immunity, tailored immunity, whatever. Expecting that you made this
>> sweeping decision after having closely observed the concerned
>> discussions on the list, or being duly reported about them, I cannot
>> see how you could have missed the fact that much of the immunity
>> discussions involved partial or tailored immunity.
>>
>> In the circumstances, I see this post facto amendment to the decision,
>> after facing strong criticism about the process adopted by you to
>> arrive at it, as an attempt to some make adjustments to its substance
>> to cover up what are strong procedural faults with the decision. The
>> process you adopted was wrong, and the decision should be withdrawn in
>> all aspects for that reason alone.
>>
>> regards, parminder
>>
>>
>>> Please note that this clarification is in no way intended to be understood as an endorsement of the concept of partial or relative immunity, but I thought it was necessary to go on the record on this aspect.
>>>
>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>> Thomas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <mailto: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/20170626/3440cc03/attachment.html>