[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction

[Greg Shatan]

All,

I encourage you to bring these points into the draft document at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing.


When doing so, please keep in mind the goal that this document will
ultimately be part of our deliverable to the CCWG.  Thanks!

Greg

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> While I don’t support the statement as a whole, I think your dismissal is
> too indiscriminate.
>
>
>
> I, too, would completely reject Parminder’s discredited argument that
> setting rules for a TLD named “pharmacy” will result in the global
> imposition of rules for the entire pharmaceutical sector (or book, or
> beauty parlors, etc.). This absurdly exaggerates the influence of TLD
> registries. Even if it were not based on a false assumption, the idea that
> because ICANN is incorporated in the US the rules its policy processes and
> registry operators adopt for these TLDs are somehow controlled by the US
> government is simply false.
>
> I also think that option #1 (incorporating ICANN under international law
> instead of California) was soundly rejected in WS1 and in fact is not a
> feasible or even coherently formulated option.
>
>
>
> Option #2, on the other hand, has some merit and certain aspects of it are
> worth considering. I see no fallacy in the statement, “With three
> different jurisdictions over these complementary functions, the possibility
> of any single one being … able to interfere in ICANN's global governance
> role will be minimized.” I think this could be considered a prudent
> political risk mitigation strategy. We are not going to change ICANN’s
> place of incorporation, and it is unlikely that we will change PTI’s place
> of incorporation so soon after we have stood up the new corporation. But it
> is not impractical to consider jurisdictional diversity the next time the
> RZM contract is renewed. (Note that I am characterizing an alternate
> jurisdiction as a ‘consideration’ and not as a ‘requirement.’ And longer
> term, as PTI matures they might also take into consideration the
> possibility of another jurisdiction. The value of this is debatable, given
> that PTI is a subsidiary of ICANN, but the possibility of separation was
> deliberately built into the design of the new arrangements. So in any
> separation process, jurisdictional diversity might be taken into account.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *
> policy at paulmcgrady.com
> *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2016 9:14 AM
> *To:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>; CCWG Accountability <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
>
>
>
> Thanks Parminder.
>
>
>
> The attachment you shared seems to be a compilation of some of the really
> terrible ideas which have shown up on this List from time to time. Since
> these terrible ideas have already been addressed and addressed and
> addressed on this List, I'm not sure that re-addressing them again at this
> time would prove useful.  However, I didn't want anyone to think that
> silence (to the latest round of trying to push for the unraveling of WS1)
> was somehow assent.  It isn't.  We just really have to get on with the real
> work of this group and stop constantly reopening and re-addressing all of
> these fringe ideas.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: Tue, November 08, 2016 7:01 pm
> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
> All
>
> I thought this may be relevant to those on this list. Regard, parminder
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> ICANN's US jurisdiction
>
> *Date: *
>
> Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:23:40 +0530
>
> *From: *
>
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
> *To: *
>
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
> Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>
>
> All
>
> As you know, the issue of jurisdiction of ICANN is under consideration at
> ICANN's community process (in the accountability track where there is a sub
> group discussing this issue). ICANN is currently meeting in Hyderabad,
> India, from 3rd to 9th November.
>
> Today, on the last day of ICANN's Hyderabad meeting, the enclosed
> statement was issued by key Indian civil society organisations engaged with
> Internet governance issues, supported by two key global networks involved
> in this area. The statement expresses the urgent need for transiting ICANN
> from being under the jurisdiction of one country, presenting the rationale
> of why this is important to do. It also lists some possible options of
> doing so, towards beginning a serious action-oriented deliberation on this
> very important matter. Unlike what is often understood, the jurisdiction
> issue is not just a matter of sovereign prestige and self respect of the
> states but concerns vital matters impacting people's rights. This is
> especially so as the society gets more and more digitised in all areas.
>
> We welcome comments and feedback.
>
> The statement has been issued by the following Indian civil society
> organisations.
>
> Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>, Bangalore
>
> IT for Change <http://www.itforchange.net/>, Bangalore
>
> Free Software Movement of India
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Movement_of_India>,
> Hyderabad
>
> Society for Knowledge Commons <http://www.knowledgecommons.in/>, New Delhi
>
> Digital Empowerment Foundation <http://defindia.org/>, New Delhi
>
> Delhi Science Forum <http://www.delhiscienceforum.net/>, New Delhi
>
> *Software Freedom Law Center India*, New Delhi
>
> Third World Network - India <https://twnetwork.org/>, New Delhi
>
>
>
> It is supported by the following global networks:
>
> Association For Progressive Communications <https://www.apc.org/>
>
> Just Net Coalition
> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>
>
>
> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>We will soon expand this effort to enlist
> more global support.
>
> Best, Parminder
>
>
> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>
>
>
> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>
>
>
> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>
>
>
> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161113/bd69f563/attachment-0001.html>