[CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues

[Greg Shatan]

Other criteria might include ease of access to courts and other forms of
redress (e.g., arbitration), including timing and predictability of
results, and ease of enforcing judgments (including enforcing judgments
abroad).  Political and financial stability and personal safety could also
come into play.  Government policies such as strength of freedom of speech
and any history of unilaterally nationalizing businesses could also be
criteria.  In this specific instance, we would need to look at whether the
accountability mechanisms that the CCWG arrived at in WS1 could be carried
out under that jurisdiction's laws.  As John Laprise notes, there are
multiple complex criteria, and we could possibly get information from
outside entities that measure various criteria if this was something to be
pursued.

Greg

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:24 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and
> level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by
> various entities) broken down into component attributes.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> Consulting Scholar
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM
> *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues
>
>
>
> What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior
> jurisdiction"?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; "Mueller, Milton L" <
> milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* "ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>; "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-
> community at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues
>
>
>
> "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable
> accountability would do."
>
> This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates
> of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all,
> the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's
> objections noted.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Professor,
>
> You put too much emphasis on private .
>
> Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
>
> Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade
> to correct everyone's confusions
>
>
>
> MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my
> horse.)
>
>
>
> can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve
> national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among
> states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without
> borders?
>
>
>
> MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In
> order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it
> created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as
> a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for
> historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that
> apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be
> incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction
> where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the
> short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not
> promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the
> rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170105/8b779fc9/attachment.html>