[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction

Sat Feb 11 17:24:22 UTC 2017

As we have repeatedly noted, the exact same thing is true of ICANN's being
subject to the laws of India, France and any other place it does business.
Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in mind of Amartya
Sen.

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
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: Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:46 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction

Nigel,

Thanks for your views. One gets faced by two kinds of arguments in favour of
keeping the jurisdictional status quo -- which are mutually exclusive.

(1) ICANN is somehow not subject to the whole range of US law and executive
powers, as any other US organisations is - or at least it is somehow felt
that US law and executive power will never apply itself over ICANN
functioning. 

(2) As you argue, ICANN is indeed subject to all US laws and powers, which
might indeed be applied over it as necessary, but this is a good and a
desirable thing. 

As we have no move forward at all, we must do it in stages and remove some
arguments off the table which we can mutually agree to be untenable. So can
we now agree that the view (1) above is simply untrue and naively held by
those who forward it. 

We can now move to (2). First of all, this means that indeed US law and
executive can impinge upon ICANN's policy implementation whenever it feels
it valid to do so in pursuance of legitimate US public interest. Meaning, If
ICANN makes a policy and does its implementation which is not in-accordance
with US law or legitimate US executive will, they can "interfere" can cause
those actions to be rolled back on the pain of state's coercive action. This
can be for instance regarding how and what medicines and health related
activities are considered ok by the concerned US regulator. (Similar
examples can be thought of in practically every sector). Are you with me
till here, because I think I am only making logical deduction over what you
seem to agree with?

If so, this indeed establishes as a fact that US jurisdiction can, as
required, impinge upon (which seen from another vantage is same as,
interfere with) ICANN policies and policy implementation.

Which makes the entire exercise of our questionnaire seeking whether it can
so happen rather needless. It of course can. 

Lets then not argue or fight over that terrain, where we have this
agreement, about how law and executive power operates vis a vis
organisations subject to their jurisdiction. 

That brings us to another terrain - that, as you argue, and others have
here, that it is right, appropriate and needed that US law and legitimate
executive power impinges upon ICANN functioning as and when required,
becuase it is important to subject everything to the rule of law (and in
your and many other people's views, ICANN can practically ONLY be subject to
rule of US's law).

I am happy to discuss this part as long as we do not keep drifting back to
the earlier one whereby there really seems to be an agreement among most of
us that US law and legitimate executive power can indeed impinge upon or
"interfere with" ICANN's policy or policy implementation work (even if many
consider such interference as being good for ICANN and public interest) . 

Your only problem with immunity seem to come up with regard to criminally
fraudulent activities. You give the examples of IOC and FIFA but I have not
found they having any special criminal immunities. I may not have looked up
well, but did they? Were they not finally raided by both Swiss and US
authorities. On the other hand there are many international organisations
with legal immunities that have been gooing great global public interest
work without corruption. Interpol hasnt started to take money to make
international warrants disappear, not, more humbly, the International
Fertilizers Development Centre, immunised under the relevant US Act, and
which enters into contracts worth millions every years for globally
distributed projects, has been known to do so....

(FIFA and IOC become corrupt because of commercial thinking completely
overpowering public service ethics -- and if ICANN becomes so it will also
be ore likely becuase of this reason. But et us not get distracted. )

And if indeed we are so concerned about ICANN's abuse of power and possible
frauds and corruption, we should have let a stronger and more agile
community accountability mechanism get established, like the membership
based one, and with lower thresholds of triggering community action... That
is where the mistake was made, and can still be corrected down the line. Do
not throw the world at the mercy of US law and executive action for this
purpose, especially when it related to to an infrastructure which today
underpins almost every social system. This is not just some sports. (No hurt
intended to sports fans, I being one.)

parminder

On Saturday 11 February 2017 02:16 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:

and innumerable others. In the circumstances, the real waiver across all 
sectors and laws would be seek immunity under the US International 
Organisations Immunity Act. Would you not prefer this route? If not, why 
so? 

Because I do not want ICANN to have immunity. 

I have been involved in this community since before it was called 'ICANN',
including the gTLD-MoU and the IFWP. 

I have seen ICANN behave as an autocrat robber baron and deprive people of
their property. 

Fortunately, we have made great strides since then. 

Accountability work, between 2003 (in the case of ccTLDs) up to last years'
transition, as well as the fact that, both staff and Board now have personal
trust, that was totally absent 15 years ago. 

But both organisations and personnnel can change. 

Institutional immunity leads to corruption. I do not want ICANN to become a
FIFA, or IOC. 

And the recent .AFRICA case shows, the checks and balances of the US
judicial system appear to work reasonably well (I personally remain uneasy
about the covenant of immunity but I expect you have no problem with that). 

I trust this explains why some people - and I am one - may have a
diametrically opposed view to yours when it comes to ICANN immunity. 

_______________________________________________ 
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/20170211/507990a5/attachment-0001.html>