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

[Paul Rosenzweig]

+1  

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> 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: John Laprise [mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 12:17 PM
To: 'parminder' <parminder at itforchange.net>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton at gatech.edu>; 'Paul Rosenzweig' <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction

 

Hi Parminder,

 

“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.”

 

Crystal.

 

Yes, every jurisdiction has pros and cons. Unfortunately the system of jurisdiction you suggest moving ICANN to is insufficiently robust or even developed. Moreover, I don’t see anything remotely approaching global consensus on such a move nor even the desirability of such a move. As a thought experiment it is interesting and engaging but from a pragmatic, practical standpoint is it sorely lacking.

 

Best regards, 

 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Consulting Scholar

 

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

 

 

 

From: 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: Sunday, February 19, 2017 10:54 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >
Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction

 

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. 


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/20170220/2f2f44f5/attachment-0001.html>