[Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN

Fri Aug 18 06:19:44 UTC 2017

Now for the secons point raised by you.

On Thursday 17 August 2017 02:29 PM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX wrote:
>
>
> 2. How would being subject to the California Corporations Code
> articulate itself with being immune? In fact this point is related to
> the first one. The CCC serves as a basic framework of corporate
> governance, something which is absent from most if not all
> international organisations. It imposes duties on ICANN and its
> constituents (board, etc.) and gives to some persons to sue ICANN over
> these. A blanket immunity would negate this. 
>
>
I have said this repeatedly, that I do not seek full but tailored
immunity alone, which allows the operation of california corporations
code over ICANN, and also any other such law that is required for ICANN
to work in terms of its organisational or technical processes. I quote
from the 'solution" part of my email to which you respond

    "This immunity should be tailored/customised in a manner that ICANN
    still remains subject to non profit law of the state of California
    under which it is registered, and its organisational processes
    function, and other such US laws and institutions that are strictly
    required for ICANN to be able to satisfactorily carry out its
    organisational, policy and technical functions (an assessment with
    respect to which should be undertaken asap)."

Does this not already answer your point? And I also did give a link to
anICANN commissioned report
<https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html>which provides
examples of US based NPOs still subject to corresponding state's
corporation law but provided partial immunity under the mentioned US act.

parminder

>
> 2017-08-16 10:36 GMT+02:00 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>:
>
>     Issue:
>
>     Various branches and agencies of the United States of America -
>     from judicial and legislative to executive, including its many
>     regulatory agencies - have exclusive (like no other country's)
>     direct legal remit and power over ICANN, as a US non-profit
>     organisation, with respect to practically every aspect that can
>     conceivably be affected by state power (their range is so enormous
>     that it is vain to begin listing them). These agencies/ y can and
>     do exercise them at any time in pursuance of US law and policies,
>     that have the primary purpose to uphold US public interest and US
>     constitution. Many examples of such powers and their possible use
>     have been given invarious public submissions
>     <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire>
>     to this group, including this one
>     <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire?preview=/64066898/64948025/ICANN_jurisdiction_questionaire_-_JNC_response-0001.pdf>
>     , and also this
>     <https://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf>.
>     Since ICANN is supposed to make policies and implement them with
>     regard to the global DNS in the global public interest and not
>     just US public interest, such unilateral availability and use of
>     legal state power with one country, the US, over ICANN is
>     untenable, and goes against basic principles of democracy
>     including of "no legislation/ policy without representation".
>     These principles are recognised by UN instruments as human rights,
>     and most countries today including the US are built over them.
>
>     Proposed solution:
>
>     ICANN be granted immunity under the International Organisations
>     Immunities Act of the US. This immunity should be
>     tailored/customised in a manner that ICANN still remains subject
>     to non profit law of the state of California under which it is
>     registered, and its organisational processes function, and other
>     such US laws and institutions that are strictly required for ICANN
>     to be able to satisfactorily carry out its organisational, policy
>     and technical functions (an assessment with respect to which
>     should be undertaken asap).
>
>
>     Additional notes:
>
>     If I may add, this has been "THE" jurisdiction question since the
>     WSIS days if not earlier ( actually since the time ICANN was
>     formed). Whether or not we are able to agree to recommending any
>     solution to this jurisdiction question, it will be an unacceptable
>     travesty of facts and history if this group does not accept this
>     as an important, if not "THE", jurisdiction question in relation
>     to ICANN.
>
>     Whether or not this group is able to contribute to global public
>     interest by making any positive progress on the question of
>     ICANN's jurisdiction, following the principles of good governance
>     and democracy, let it not regress and actually serve to obfuscate
>     what is seen and known as the "ICANN's jurisdiction" question by
>     everyone, by the global public at large. (For instance, in ICANN's
>     own internal discussions like when the ICANN chair commissioned
>     this report
>     <https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html>on the
>     jurisdiction issue).
>
>     If we can accept that this is a key jurisdiction (even if not
>     "THE") question, but are not able to agree on a proposed solution,
>     let us just write that in our report. But let us not contribute to
>     alt-truth, a very dangerous phenomenon that is often spoke of
>     nowadays. Both as a group, and individually as responsible persons
>     - given an important global political responsibility -- we owe at
>     least that much to ourselves.
>
>     As for myself, and the groups that I work with, we will stand
>     resolutely till the end in the path of any such synthesis of
>     artificial reality - when a global group tasked to address the
>     decades old democratic question of unilateral jurisdiction of one
>     country over the global governance body, ICANN, comes up with a
>     report that asserts that this is not a jurisdiction issue at all,
>     or at least not an important one. 
>
>     parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>     Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
> Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017
> LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/>
> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170818/40d9bbb5/attachment-0001.html>