[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 11:29:48 UTC 2017
Seun,
You say that a "Trump travel Ban . . . 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."
Can you clarify how a travel ban into the US from a list of countries would
"have global effects on ICANN" and a travel ban into Turkey from a list of
countries not have a similar type of effect? Is this just because more
people will want to travel to ICANN's operations in the US than those in
Turkey? Why is it a global effect on ICANN if it only concerns a small
number of countries?
[Please note that I personally do not support the travel ban, nor do I
minimize the effects it has had and continues to have on citizens of those
countries.]
Thanks!
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170214/0f557df0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list