[Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Aug 19 04:26:06 UTC 2017
On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:06 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder
>
>
>
> Can you please provide a list? That is, can you specify which US laws
> you wish immunity from under your tailored approach? And, can you
> also advise, will you also argue (I assume the answer is yes) that
> ICANN should seek immunity from the public law of other countries?
>
Yes, ICANN very well should seek such immunity from all countries. As
immunity from US law can only be provided by US gov, immunities from
public law of all other countries will require consent of all other
govs. The normal way is to obtain such immunity at one time under an
international agreement singed at the same time but all countries,
rather than go to about 200 countries one by one. I am very much for
such an international agreement providing such international status and
corresponding immunity to ICANN. If US were to agree I am sure all outer
countries would quickly agree to such an agreement..
parminder
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Friday, August 18, 2017 2:20 AM
> *To:* Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of
> one country over ICANN
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/20170819/02264511/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list