[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24

[parminder]

Colleagues,

Excuse my disappointed tone, but I am unable to get a fix on what
direction are we headed right now, or whether we are moving at all .

We seem to have laid all our hope on some legalistic pursuits, which
happen to be of a kind with known outcomes. On one side we have sent out
a questionnaire with an exceedingly narrow remit of seeking past
occurrences where ICANN's US jurisdiction may have come in conflict with
ICANN's working. All of these instances are very widely known and
discussed, and whatever inferences each of us makes out of them is what
we make out of them. Though these differences and their rationales can
be discussed here. There is not going to any case of some guy from deep
Indian jungles suddenly coming out with a story of an old illicit
liaison with ICANN, which will then open our eyes to something very new.
Whom are we kidding, other than ourselves, all the cases that exist are
know - quite well known. If we want to, we can discuss them. But this
waiting for godot isnt going to be of any use.

If some people believe that this exercise is going to make us able to
say; well, we looked everywhere, and we found no proof that US
jurisdiction of ICANN has any (or any substantial) implication for
ICANN's policy making processes, that is simply plain silly. That is not
going to happen. Our differences here are not about some unknown
historical facts, but about facts that we all mutually know, and our
respective inferences from them.

Similarly, we have referred to ICANN legal issues of jurisdiction and
jurisprudence that are so obvious and simple that even a non lawyer like
me is pretty clear about them. In any case, there is enough literature
out there on how courts exercise jurisdiction, and what trumps what, and
so on. There is no way that this exercise is going to come up with some
kind of proof that US jurisdiction is only as much applicable over ICANN
as any other jurisdiction, or that even if ICANN was incorporated
elsewhere, or had judicial immunity, the US jurisdiction will still have
same kind of powers over ICANN as it does now. 


I think we should stop shadow boxing, and get on with real tasks.

IMHO, this group is mostly not able to decide what to do, knowing that
the differences of opinions (and excuse me to say, interests) are very
wide, and also very basic. And therefore we are simply trying to look
like keeping busy. I dont think this is a very productive use of
people's time.

Does anyone have any bright idea about how we can wrap this all up...

parminder

On Wednesday 29 March 2017 12:58 AM, McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction
wrote:
>
> My apologies to group and Greg for absence – I intended to attend the
> call but am at present in a Hilton Hotel in Brussels where the
> internet access has been abysmal – until just a few minutes ago. Will
> ry to join now.
>
>  
>
> David
>
>  
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154
>
>  
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:44 PM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction
> Subgroup Meeting #24
>
>  
>
> All:
>
>  
>
> Here is the agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at
> 19:00 UTC today.
>
>  
>
> Greg
>
> *Greg Shatan
> *C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170329/eadba417/attachment-0001.html>