[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Feb 14 12:22:29 UTC 2017
That is of course, a different fish kettle.
But I don't think it that likely that the current Administration will
think ICANN is important enough to be granted exemptions from things
like OFAC except in very specific circumstances (such as managing the
delegation records for the ccTLDs for various embargoed countries, such
as .KP etc, and of course that's PTI now anyway)
n 14/02/17 11:17, Seun Ojedeji 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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <http://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>
>
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>>____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> <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>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <http://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>
>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <http://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>
>
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>>____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> <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>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <http://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>
>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <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>
>
>
> 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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list