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

[parminder]

On Monday 21 August 2017 07:08 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense legally.  It is a good
> statement of purpose from your perspective, but it isn’t an
> operational statement.  I was heartened to see you try and identify
> some other provisions of American law that you think ICANN should be
> immune from (most of which, by the way, do not involve the vagaries of
> US foreign policy and so contradict your purpose statement – but that
> is another issue).  Let’s focus on that.
>

I already submitted a list of such provisions of US law, and pointed to
further cases in the documents I linked. But I have no response from you
on them.

For instance, the issue of domain name seizures by US Customs (which btw
is foreign policy related although I do not intend to limit myself to
explicit foreign policy). For your benefit I will quote once again from
another document describing this issue.


First, is the authority of, and know similar actions of domain name
seizure by, US Customs. I'd quote from aJust Net Coalition submission
<https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire?preview=/64066898/64948025/ICANN_jurisdiction_questionaire_-_JNC_response-0001.pdf>to
ICANN also mentioned above.

        US executive agencies have routinely considered the DNS as a
        legitimate lever to exercise its coercive powers. Especially for
        entities outside the US that it seeks to impact, and who are
        provided DNS service from an entity within the US, it has
        unhesitatingly employed US jurisdiction over the US based DNS
        provider to pull the DNS plug on the “erring non US based entities”.

        Please see the below news reports on hundreds of such cases.

        https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/

        http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/11/seizing-domain-names-without-coica.html

        ICANN, as a US non profit, is no different than a US-based
        registry or registrar located in the US, in terms of how a US
        authority can and will employ it for coercive actions against
        “errant entities”. Since most entities use a .com, .net, etc
        domain name, till now the means of enforcement have been

        through the corresponding registries, mostly Verisign. However,
        in case of gTLDs operated by a registry outside the US, ICANN
        alone can provide the means of coercive action – that of
        disabling the gLTD. There is no question that, as Verisign has
        so often been forced by US agencies to disable

        domain names, sooner or later so will ICANN be forced. Doing
        this just to uphold US law would constitute a constraint on
        ICANN's responsibility to act in the interest of global Internet
        community.

(quote ends)

Can you explain why a prospective application of OFAC over a cctld or
gtld is a problem (which I think it very much is) but the likely
problems with US Customs seizing a gTLD through ICANN is not (when very
symmetrical actions have taken place earlier)?

This above is from my email dt 20 Aug.... The email discusses other
problem areas as well, but lets first deal with this one ...

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:* Monday, August 21, 2017 7:09 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: RES: RES: ISSUE - unilateral
> jurisdiction of one country over ICANN
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Monday 21 August 2017 04:29 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>
>     And what will ICANN then be immune from?
>
>
> Milton put it nicely, to quote, "...from the vagaries of U.S. foreign
> policy or other laws and policies that would circumvent ICANN’s
> accountability to its global MS community."
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>     Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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/20170822/2a0e7b56/attachment.html>