[Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Aug 16 13:01:18 UTC 2017
On Wednesday 16 August 2017 06:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Erich,
>
> Partial Immunity is a remedy.
I described it, in the statement of the issue I raised, which is
exemplified in terms of various kinds of ramifications in the docs that
are linked (and submitted to the group) and also a longer description of
the issue is contained in the 5 points that I recently cut pasted from
the old "influence of jurisdiction" doc.. parminder
> Can you describe in somewhat more detail the specific issue you are
> trying to resolve? That way we can consider the various potential
> remedies for that issue.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:38 AM Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Nigel
> Thank you very much for your comments. Pls kindly describe your
> concerns in a more comprehensive manner . What was the unfortunate
> approach?
> Pls kindly recognize that some people residing in those countries
> under OFAC
>
> sanctions are suffering a lot .we need to think of those people as
> well internet plays a crucial role in their daily life thus any
> burden should be shared.ICANN should avoid being politicized.
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Nigel Roberts
> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
> I must take the opportunity to highlight that a number of
> ccTLDs may object to any form of immunity for ICANN and/or PTI.
>
> Some of us still remember the early days of ICANN, and while
> we trust the current management and Board, we do not want
> there to be a possibility that a future set of incumbents
> could return that unfortunate approach.
>
>
>
> On 16/08/17 12:47, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I propose to work on the issue on partial immunity. The
> core functions of ICANN should not be only decided by the
> multi-stakeholder community, covering legislation,
> administration and dispute settlement.
> States (and International Organisations) should refrain
> from exercising its concurrent jurisdiction, respecting
> ICANN's special role and governance model.
> As quick and clear solutions are not easily at hand (e.g.
> unilateral acceptance of immunity by States or a treaty),
> problems of interference of States should be settled by
> negotations or judicial dicisions, depending on the
> relevant jurisdiction (e.g. OFAC). This solution is
> cumbersome but may result in sufficient immunity of ICANN,
> being in line of present international policy of
> restricting immunities for international entities.
> Argumentation could be diverse, e.g. granting partial
> immunity for ICANN's special role or no interference in
> third party rights. Administrations and courts must accept
> that only the multi-stakeholder model is the appropriate
> forum for such questions.
>
>
> Best, Erich
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] im Auftrag
> von Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 12. August 2017 01:13
> An: ws2-jurisdiction
> Cc: Thomas Rickert
> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The
> Path Forward
>
> Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
>
> As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we
> have until 11 October to submit a draft set of
> recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a
> first reading if any such recommendations are to be
> accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation
> and included in the Final WS2 Report.
>
> In other words, we have about 8 weeks to develop a draft
> set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
>
> Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that
> we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the
> only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any
> recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4)
> on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can
> propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
>
> I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree,
> meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this
> limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and
> work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop
> recommendations for these.
>
> To reach this objective I would propose the following
> approach:
>
>
> * Each participant should pick one issue which they
> believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list
> prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:
> * Issues should be very specific -- avoid
> open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues
> * Issue description should be succinct -- 12
> standard lines maximum
> * Proposed solutions – if you have a possible
> solution or recommendation which should be considered,
> please include it (again, being succinct).
> * Put your issue in a new email (not a reply),
> with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]
> * The sooner, the better
> I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next
> meeting of 16 August and I would encourage participants to
> comment on this proposal in response to this email prior
> to that meeting.
>
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170816/0f6a6cb4/attachment.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list