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

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Mon Nov 14 17:25:08 UTC 2016

I don’t think so, Ed. The last time some states tried secession it kicked off the Civil War.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:56 AM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List; policy at paulmcgrady.com
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction


- it seems as if the goal is to try again on this issue having not prevailed on it in WS1 which builds the accountability structures on California law.

If the subgroup lasts long enough, perhaps the issue of US jurisdiction will actually go away on it's own. :)



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
Date: Sat, November 12, 2016 2:29 pm
To: "policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>" <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>, "James M.
Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List
<council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Paul et al

What is driving this?

Most of the discussions / arguments I’ve seen about jurisdiction stem from something specific, either a domain name or a website being taken offline or similar. ICANN’s jurisdiction in such cases is irrelevant, as if it’s done by court order it’s being enacted by either the registrar or the registry.

Other arguments and discussions seem to stem from a misunderstanding of how ICANN, registries, registrars and other parts of the ecosystem interact.
The statement seems to be conflating a lot of unrelated things and is really confusing, though I’m still a bit jetlagged, so I may have misunderstood some of it.

Maybe I’m missing something?



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>" <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>
Date: Friday 11 November 2016 at 13:54
To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction

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.


-------- 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,

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

I thought this may be relevant to those on this list. Regard, parminder

-------- Forwarded Message --------

ICANN's US jurisdiction


Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:23:40 +0530


parminder <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>


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>


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/>

We will soon expand this effort to enlist more global support.
Best, Parminder

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161114/9393dfa0/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list