[CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues

Thu Jan 5 22:05:01 UTC 2017

Strongly agree.

Best regards, 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Consulting Scholar

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

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:03 PM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues

And once the criteria have been established, I think we’d also need to clearly demonstrate whether/how the current (US/California) jurisdiction fails to deliver on some/all of these identified points.

Thank you,

J.

-----

James Bladel 

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 16:00 
To: John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com> >
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues

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 <mailto: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/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman at yahoo.com <mailto:zakirbinrehman at yahoo.com> ] 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM
To: John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> >
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> ; accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com> >
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> > 
Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> " <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> >; "accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/f090f96f/attachment-0001.html>