[Ws2-jurisdiction] Our work so far, and a way forward

[Nigel Roberts]

Parminder

Would you not agree that a better formulation would be that in any 
question of public law, the Law and Jurisdiction is, usually, the law 
that is generally the law and jurisdication that applies, generally, to 
the RELEVANT PUBLIC AUTHORITY (sometimes called 'emanation of the state')?

Examples:

Iin determining a public law question of an English town council, the 
law of England-and-Wales applies, and the English High Court has 
jurisdiction.

Or for a Scottish police authority, Scottish law applies, and the Court 
of Session has jurisdiction under Chapter 58, similarly.

In a question relating to whether the actions of a German Federal 
ministry are lawful, German law applies and the Administrative Court 
would have jurisdication. (If the question was about the constutionality 
of their actions, it would, I expect, be the Constitutional Count ).

I said 'usually' at the start, since there are exceptions. Countries 
with a Federal system of government will have specific rules relating to 
the relationship of different tiers.

European Law is another. At the moment, the UK Government is still 
subject to EU law, and in any question relating to the interpretation of 
EU law, the ECJ has ultimate jurisdiction.

US lawyers can provide similar examples of where and how you take State 
and Federal official bodies to court.



However, NONE OF THIS IS ANY LONGER RELEVANT, unless someone here can 
persuade me otherwise.

Since Oct 1st, public law is not a concern for ICANN (except perhaps in 
any question that may arise considering the legality or otherwise of 
actions by individual GAC members under their own domestic law).

ICANN is an entirely private law based entity.

It deals in domestic private law (i.e. when it contracts with law 
service providers, in whatever context) and international private law 
(when it deals with registries and registries, LARGELY (but not 
necessarily exclusively) under Californian law and its conflict-of-law 
provisions.

So why are we even talking about it??



On 17/10/16 06:13, parminder wrote:
>

>> /"in the application of public law there is no choice of jurisdiction
>> available to the parties, and they are subject the jurisdiction of the
>> state where they are located"/