[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Tue Feb 14 14:56:56 UTC 2017
+ 1
On 14/02/2017 14:39, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:32 AM
> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Nigel Roberts
> <nigel at channelisles.net>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
>
> In regard to President Trump's proposed temporary travel restrictions,
> the fact that they have been enjoined by US Courts illustrates that
> ICANN is well placed in a nation subject to rule of law and separation
> of powers.
>
> So far as OFAC restrictions aimed at preventing business transactions
> with criminal and terrorist organizations, ICANN has indicated that it
> can request exemptions and that when it has done so they have been
> granted (at least that is my recollection).
>
> Finally, and once again, arguments that ICANN should be immune not
> just from US jurisdiction but from the laws of any nation state are in
> effect positing that ICANN should be an IGO with broad quasi-sovereign
> immunity. That would be both contrary to the aim of the transition as
> well as contrary to effective accountability, which can only occur
> when Bylaws transgressions can be adjudicated in court if internal
> mechanisms fail.
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172/cell*
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Seun Ojedeji
> [seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:17 AM
> *To:* Nigel Roberts
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
>
> 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/>____
>
> My PGP Key:
> 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/>____
>
> 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>
> <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/>____
>
> My PGP Key:
> 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/>____
>
> 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>
> <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> ____
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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>
> <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> ____
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13918 - Release Date: 02/09/17
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170214/b98004e2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list