[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 11:17:00 UTC 2017
Thanks Nigel, I am not asking about an overall immunity for ICANN but I am
talking about specific scenario like the ones I have indicated. Maybe the
right word isn't immunity.
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Feb 14, 2017 11:45 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> I think you miss the point about immunity.
>
> It's means "ICANN can do what it likes and can't be sued".
>
>
>
> On 14/02/17 09:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am not a lawyer but it doesn't sound accurate to say that the effect
>> of the country of (US) on ICANN is same with that of other
>> countries (including the ones hosting her regional hubs) because that is
>> what I think Paul may be implying here.
>>
>> As a simple example is a Trump travel Ban and the OFAC stuff compared to
>> if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former
>> would have global effects on ICANN than the latter. I for one would be
>> glad if there can be immunity/exemption for ICANN(used in literary
>> terms) in such scenarios
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2017 7:59 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig"
>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact. Or
>> put another way – it is wrong.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in France,
>> ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy authorities might,
>> for example, attempt to get ICANN to follow their right to be
>> forgotten. They would fail, I think, but that proposition is no
>> different in kind than the idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over
>> ICANN which will not change one iota if ICANN changes its
>> jurisdiction of incorporation. As I have said before, the only way
>> in which place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your
>> words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to
>> corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g. the
>> implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance – it would
>> change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as others have also
>> noted, the corporate law of California is vital to ICANN’s current
>> structure.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> As for your question about my professional life it is amusing –
>> because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in fact,
>> given exactly that advice to German businesses with operations in
>> the United States. I tell them that if they want to avoid American
>> law (mostly law relating to cybersecurity) the only way to do so is
>> to avoid having a business presence in the US. If they want to
>> forgo the market completely they can do so to avoid American law.
>> But otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same thing
>> about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do this for a
>> living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to paying clients.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> It is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are making
>> assertions that have no actual basis in any law that I know of.
>> Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not make them so____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Paul____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig____
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>>
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>____
>>
>> My PGP Key:
>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
>> 097CA066684
>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
>> 0097CA066684>____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM
>> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>;
>> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
>> jurisdiction____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:____
>>
>> 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. ____
>>
>>
>> Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this
>> is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of
>> incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a
>> completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it
>> may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition?
>>
>> Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business
>> incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that
>> the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the
>> real life implications of such application -- is more or less the
>> same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where
>> it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and
>> unambiguous response to this. Thanks.
>>
>> If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone
>> knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can
>> go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let
>> the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use
>> wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic
>> universally known legal and political facts.
>>
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in
>> mind of Amartya Sen.____
>>
>>
>> A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and
>> self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic
>> American"...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig____
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>>
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>____
>>
>> My PGP Key:
>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
>> 097CA066684
>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
>> 0097CA066684>____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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) . ____
>> > of the country of (US) on ICANN is same with that of other
>> countries (including the ones hosting her regional hubs) because that is
>> what I think Paul may be implying here.
>>
>> As a simple example is a Trump travel Ban and the OFAC stuff compared to
>> if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former
>> would have global effects on ICANN than the latter. I for one would be
>> glad if there can be immunity/exemption for ICANN(used in literary
>> terms) in such scenarios
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2017 7:59 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig"
>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact. Or
>> put another way – it is wrong.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in France,
>> ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy authorities might,
>> for example, attempt to get ICANN to follow their right to be
>> forgotten. They would fail, I think, but that proposition is no
>> different in kind than the idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over
>> ICANN which will not change one iota if ICANN changes its
>> jurisdiction of incorporation. As I have said before, the only way
>> in which place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your
>> words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to
>> corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g. the
>> implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance – it would
>> change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as others have also
>> noted, the corporate law of California is vital to ICANN’s current
>> structure.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> As for your question about my professional life it is amusing –
>> because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in fact,
>> given exactly that advice to German businesses with operations in
>> the United States. I tell them that if they want to avoid American
>> law (mostly law relating to cybersecurity) the only way to do so is
>> to avoid having a business presence in the US. If they want to
>> forgo the market completely they can do so to avoid American law.
>> But otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same thing
>> about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do this for a
>> living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to paying clients.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> It is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are making
>> assertions that have no actual basis in any law that I know of.
>> Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not make them so____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Paul____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig____
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>>
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>____
>>
>> My PGP Key:
>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
>> 097CA066684
>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
>> 0097CA066684>____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM
>> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>;
>> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
>> jurisdiction____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:____
>>
>> 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. ____
>>
>>
>> Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this
>> is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of
>> incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a
>> completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it
>> may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition?
>>
>> Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business
>> incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that
>> the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the
>> real life implications of such application -- is more or less the
>> same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where
>> it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and
>> unambiguous response to this. Thanks.
>>
>> If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone
>> knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can
>> go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let
>> the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use
>> wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic
>> universally known legal and political facts.
>>
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in
>> mind of Amartya Sen.____
>>
>>
>> A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and
>> self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic
>> American"...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig____
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>>
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>____
>>
>> My PGP Key:
>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
>> 097CA066684
>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
>> 0097CA066684>____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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
>>
>>
> 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
>> <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
>> <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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170214/a17a13b0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list