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

[parminder]

On Sunday 19 February 2017 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>  
>
> Parminder said:
>
> The travel bans make the simple but clear point that a nation will use
> its legal machinery for all purposes that it considers being in
> national interest, no matter if that rides roughshod over the
> interests of people from other countries. The many lessons from this
> for the issue of ICANN being under US jurisdiction are rather obvious....
>
>  
>
> MM reply: It is obvious that your use of the indefinite article is
> correct: “a nation will use…”
>

So, we agree here that US government can very plausibly be expected to
use all existing or possible new laws, within its constitutional
competence to make, to direct ICANN (aka interference with ICANN's
policy processes) as its sees to be in US's national interest, which we
all know cannot be supposed to fully conflate with global public interest.

BTW, do see the recent order of Trump administration which expressly
says "“Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law,
ensure that their privacy policies /*exclude */persons who are not
United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the
protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable
information.” (emphasis added)

Now, I know most national laws afford protection only to citizens but
insisting on specifically excluding protections to non citizens looks
like a overkill, but its the US gov's privilege, as we have been discussing.

In the circumstance, since this position , that US state can very
plausibly interfere with ICANN's policy implementation,can a priori be
established, we really do not need that questionnaire and its responses,
(which has deliberately been specifically rigged to exclude such
extremely justified a priori considerations) to work on solutions
against such expected eventualities. Does this not logically follow from
your agreement with my "indefinite article"?

> That is, ANY nation will or might use. So moving jurisdiction out of
> the US does not change this problem in the slightest. Indeed, it could
> make it worse, as I can offhand think of 8-10 nations that would make
> it worse. I think this is the point you keep missing.
>

My deal Milton, I do not miss this point. I have never, and I have
insisted on this point several times on this elist, asked for ICANN
jurisdiction to be moved to another country from the US. I would
consider any such demand to be disrespectful of the US, as much as I
consider present ICANN's jurisdictional status to be disrespectful of
all non US nations. Dont know why not just you but many others keep
missing this point again and again.

I have asked for immunity and/or shift to international law. In both
these cases no nation will be able to use its legal system to
unilaterally assert its own national interest over ICANN's working. I
hope I make my position clear.

best, parminder


>  
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170220/116a3c07/attachment.html>