[Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

[parminder]

On Friday 07 April 2017 09:54 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Similar provisions would apply in European countries, including checks
> on terrorist and criminal financing, and moneylaundering.

Nigel,

Is it your understanding -- and of those others who support you here --
that international organisations with jurisdictional immunity, like a
WIPO or IMF, are unduly exposed and susceptible to terrorist and
criminal funding, and other possible criminalities? And that they better
did something about it asap?

Most of the world does not think so -- even as these organisations only
operate under their laws of incorporation, and have jurisdictional
immunities. Most people think that their governance is robust, and there
are strong ways rooted in their internal governance to check any such
possibilities. And of course such governance structures can lift
immunity from any person or act and expose him/ it to normal criminal
jurisdictions.... This has worked very well, and there is no danger,
most people feel, for this scheme to collapse or become ineffective.

Since you often bring up this point, and how ICANN would very likely go
rotten if jurisdictional immunities are given, I can only interpret it
in one way. That you do not trust ICANN's internal governance
mechanisms, as much as people trust those of say WIPO or IMF, or even of
a humble International Fertilizer and Development Centre (IFDC), which
does "business" worth millions in many countries even as it has
jurisdictional immunity.

It is instructive to hear from a long-standing ICANNer, and currently an
ICANN official, and also support for him from others, that ICANN's
governance system cannot be trusted enough. (If you think I am unduly
putting words in your mouth, pl make that case.) It is less trustworthy
than an WIPO's, IMFs, or IFDC's governance system !! My question to you
then is, if ICANN's governance system is not good enough to save itself
from terrorist and criminal financing, how is it good enough to
represent global public's interest in making policies for one of the
most significant infrastructure of current times, and that too without
any supervision? I will be obliged for a direct answer.

So all this game about extensive multi stakeholder and community
processes, that is touted to be so good that it can independently assess
and work as per global public interest, is all humbug, a paper tiger !?
By the same logic as you present now, NTIA's continued oversight would
also have been a good thing.... It is certainly many times easier to
inure an organisation against the kind of criminal acts that you mention
than it is to ensure that it really upholds public interest, and not
succumb to special and insider interests. This latter is one of the most
difficult thing to attain, and sustain.

If you are not confident that ICANN's governance structure can protect
it against terrorist/ criminal funding (for instance, by first
preventing such acts, and if they come to notice to expose them to
normal criminal jurisdictional processes), what makes you confident that
ICANN can independently, without supervision, uphold global public
interest in a vital area? I know I am repeating the question, but it is
very important.

You do not seem to think that the community accountability structure
that has been put in place is a good enough check against power abuse
and impropriety? Of course we have not forgotten how the ICANN, its
insiders, rejected stronger accountability measures  -- like the
membership model, and kept pushing to make the current model also as
weak as possible, and make it difficult to act against the ICANN power
centres...

It is funny to the extreme... You think ICANN's internal governance
model is weak (not even as good as of the existing many international
organisations) and therefore it cannot be given jurisdictional immunity.
And when we were trying to make stronger governance mechanisms, with
better "outside" checks, ICANN insiders did not let us do it.

AND, at the same time ICANN wants to go to the town singing praises of
its unique new age governance model, and even recommend and spend huge
money (a  la the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative and many other attempts)
to employ this "ICANN model" in all sectors of global, and possibly
later, in national, level governance.

And now you are saying, an ICANN without federal agents breathing down
its neck, cannot even ensure that it does not get into terrorist/
criminal funding??!!

I think there is a limit to which a set of ICANN insiders can make a
fool of the rest of the world -- however well its machinery is organised
for this purpose (relying a lot of illegal tapping of public money from
uncontrolled taxing of DNS).

The facade cracks, and in funny ways, whenever real questions of power
come up.... It collapsed when ICANN board actually told ICANN's so
called community that it is just not representative enough of the global
community, which is pretty funny given that ICANN board takes its
legitimacy in the first place from the same very "community".

And I see it collapse now, when ICANN is asked for the simple thing of
seeking jurisdictional immunity, and we hear them say, well, the fact
is, we are simply not mature enough to survive without it!!!

The fact is, when push comes to shove, it is always the deep power
interests speaking, behind all the outside ICANN wonderland.

The charade will certainly come to an end someday. Meanwhile, we need to
keep pointing to the Emperor's clothes, however lonesome that public
interest enterprise may sometimes get..

Nigel, thanks for showing how naked ICANN's governance model stands,
although I can understand that wasnt your objective.


 parminder


>
> ICANN has to follow the law of wherever it is located. I find this
> preferable to ICANN being immune to the consequences of its own
> misfeasance and/or negligence
>
>
>
>
> On 07/04/17 16:07, parminder wrote:
>>
>> What do you make of the following passage from
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>