[Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues

[Kavouss Arasteh]

John,
With all due respect, you are too quick to decide unilaterally,
It is not ONLY  Kavouss, Parminder, Pedro, AND.... WHO HAVE DIFFICULTIES.
The issue has not yet been debated . We are just at the begining on raising
questions and you Dear John jumping to conclusions. This is the way that
you and your people having the same views as you wants to do.
Please wait and be patient
Have a nice holidays
Kavouss

2016-12-30 6:58 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

> On Friday 30 December 2016 04:29 AM, John Laprise wrote:
>
> "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable
> accountability would do."
>
> OK, John, then come to India, I hope you'd agree all stable democracies
> provide stable jurisdictions, or at least most of them do. Lets incorporate
> ICANN in India.
>
> Of course, you are going to say but it is already incorporated in the US,
> why change. (It is always so much easier to defend the status quo!). I will
> tell you why change. A lot of non USians, Indians among them, have shown
> discomfort with the application of the current and future US public law to
> ICANN, and consider it unacceptable, on the "no legislation without
> representation" principle, which is very basic to democratic thinking.
> However, somehow, somewhat miraculously (almost) all US based participants
> here seem to have developed a strong collective view that "application of a
> country's public law to ICANN simply does not matter" (if this is not the
> view of most US participants here, pl do let me know that) .
>
> Ok, I say then, if "application of a country's public law to ICANN simply
> does not matter", shift to India, and let Indian public laws apply. Since
> it seems to be all the same to USian participants here , but non USian/
> Indian participants are bothered about the issue of US public law, we solve
> what is a problem in the eyes of many without taking away anything from
> others who dont see the problem. Since, US participants seem not to have
> any problem with public laws application in any case.
>
> But of course, this is just a hypothetical formulation to try to make the
> problem of jurisdiction clearer. I am sure people here will never
> contemplate such a lowly thing as moving ICANN to India!
>
> Guys, I have asked this question a few times here, but never get a
> response. But I wont stop asking. Would the USians here have accepted if
> ICANN had been incorporated in India, and sought no change? Try to honestly
> answer this question - if you wont do it publicly, just to yourself.
>
> parminder
>
>
> 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 listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161230/3413f448/attachment-0001.html>