[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

[farzaneh badii]

on what basis exploring the immunity of ICANN hampers multistakeholder
model? And we have not even explored how ICANN accountability can be made
better or worse if it receives immunity. We can't just shut down the
conversation with presumptions. We need to explore this issue.

On 19 December 2016 at 14:59, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:

> Phil is entirely correct.
>
> We have dedicated 20 years since the IFWP of 1998-9 to creating a
> multistakeholder model.
>
> We cannot seek to change that in pursuit of a perceived immunity that
> would make ICANN unaccountable.
>
>
>
> On 19/12/16 19:49, Phil Corwin wrote:
>
>> I believe that requesting views regarding “/providing possible
>> jurisdictional immunity”/ are both misleading and outside the scope of
>> this WG.
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN based upon the MSM is of necessity an entity that is private in
>> nature in which civil society, academia, business, and other private
>> parties formulate policy and governments have a secondary role to
>>  provide advice. The only entities I know other than nation-states that
>> enjoy any degree of jurisdictional immunity are International
>> Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) established by treaty, and in
>> those organizations governments have the controlling role. Hence,
>> pursuit of any type of jurisdictional immunity is equivalent to an
>> effort to change the fundamental nature of ICANN,  as well as being in
>> violation of the key condition of the IANA transition, which is that
>> ICANN would not become an IGO. In addition, providing ICANN with
>> jurisdictional immunity would insulate it from legal process and hence
>> undermine accountability.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, as I know based upon my current tenure as Co-Chair of the WG
>> looking at access to curative rights processes by IGOs, when we sought
>> expert legal advice on the recognized scope of immunity for IGOs we
>> learned that such immunity is not absolute and that the scope is based
>> upon the specific fact situation involved as well as the national court
>> in which the immunity is claimed. Hence, going down this road would
>> require a tremendous amount of additional legal research dealing with a
>> variety of hypothetical scenarios in separate national jurisdictions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *parminder
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2016 8:10 AM
>> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
>> Results
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 17 December 2016 12:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>>     SNIP
>>
>>     John Laprise's wording was much, much better:
>>
>>     "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to
>> changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual
>> operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"
>>
>>
>> This formulation does not include possibilities of jurisdictional
>> immunity.
>>
>> Something like
>>
>>
>> "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing
>> ICANN’s jurisdiction*, */or providing possible jurisdictional immunity,/*
>> particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and
>> accountability mechanisms?"
>>
>>
>> would be better.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161219/3f32027b/attachment.html>