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

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Sun Nov 13 04:59:03 UTC 2016


I'm a very distant observer in CCWG-Acct list but I still believe there is latitude that WS1 allowed for WS2-Jurisdiction for discussing the jurisdiction of ICANN contractual framework like the RAs and RAAs, even though not the jurisdiction of ICANN itself, or PTI for that matter. And that is a jurisdiction question that is keen to all GNSO groups: contracted parties would like to have clearer jurisdiction definitions in their contracts, while others would like to see more privacy-savvy jurisdictions in there so there is more data protection to registrants, while others might prefer as they are, based on a jurisdiction that is not much privacy-oriented, so they have more access to registration data... 

.. as for reopening ICANN's own jurisdiction, I have a peace pipe solution which is to change ICANN's jurisdiction to the one where the last ICANN meeting occurred, so every 4 months we have a new one and nobody gets jealous of it because it will it not endure. Can we now move to the the contractual framework jurisdiction discussion ? ;-)


> On Nov 11, 2016, at 11:54 AM, policy at paulmcgrady.com wrote:
> Thanks James.  Great seeing you and everyone else this past week.  
> Just an FYI for those not participating in WS2-Jurisdiction, this ICANNxit idea has been pushed very hard by Parminder and others on the list.  As we all know, the accountability reforms of WS1 are all predicated on California law, so this idea seems outside of the scope of WS2 since WS2 wasn't meant to dismantle WS1.  Further complicating things, there is now a crowd in WS2-Jurisdiction pushing for the idea that ICANN should be "immune" from the courts; essentially the opposite of accountability.  
> Now for the commentary:  I hope that if either of these bad ideas make their way into the final reports (however unlikely that such would occur), that the GNSO at least would stand in the way of adoption -- even if such a stand were against the tide of ICANN orthodoxy prevalent at the moment of voting.
> Best,
> Paul
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> Date: Wed, November 09, 2016 3:08 am
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Council colleagues –
> See below for a statement published on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list.
> Thank you,
> J.
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:31 
> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
> 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> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> To: 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org> <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161113/496dab7c/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list