"Any nation controls its own ccTLD" is very much disputed and does not apply to all ccTLDs. I am sure the ccNSO community can shed light on that. Using the term "own" implies that ccTLD is property while it is yet to be clarified and some ccTLD operators argue vehemently against it. And I don't know what is meant by nations here. It is meant the states? So states own their ccTLDs? Not necessarily and not all ccTLDs operate similarly.

On 22 June 2016 at 23:30, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

I'm not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own ccTLD.

ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn't decide who performs technical and other operations for a given ccTLD.

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

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:11 PM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

And the redelegation of .US . . . .

On 22/06/16 20:39, Phil Corwin wrote:
> So long as we have a common understanding of what would constitute
> "interference by the U.S. government" (of which there has been little
> to none since ICANN's inception, with the possible exception of the
> delay in .xxx delegation to the root). I presume you are advocating
> deciding upon a process to address such an occurrence, rather than
> making a decision now about an alternate jurisdiction for a situation
> that may never arise, or occur decades from now.
>
> I'll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include
> interference in ICANN's policymaking process (outside of advocacy
> within the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root
> zone, through methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.
>
> I don't think it should include private litigation brought against
> ICANN and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions,
> such as bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of
> illicit pricing decisions, or criminal charges against an ICANN
> employee for embezzlement, etc.
>
> *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***
>
> **
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM
> *To:* Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
>
> In the reflexive approach, you would ask "what are the institutional
> mechanisms or procedures to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be
> addressed in an adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer
> tenable, however rare it may it?" In the absolute rarest of rare cases
> that the US legislature or judiciary try to interfere with community
> decisions (the black swan scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this
> interference is contained/minimised? What are the institutional
> mechanisms or procedures for addressing the situation where the US (or
> any other) jurisdiction is no longer hospitable/ideal for the ICANN
> policymaking or IANA functions? These are the questions that we should
> be asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.
>
> MM: I think this is a good point. Even advocates of US jurisdiction or
> those who, like me, think there is just no better alternative and that
> the disruption and risks caused by a change are not worth the
> uncertain improvements, can easily agree that there should be
> procedures or plans for how to respond to interference by the U.S. government.
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date:
> 06/21/16
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Farzaneh