snip
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
On Sunday 19 June 2016 12:11 PM, Seun
Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Parminder,
As an African, I would tend to agree with your point and
wish that your conclusion point was the case (as a reactive
measure). However as you know, we have discussed this
extensively in the past (on different fora) and we found
that the means to the end of such is so complicated and the
end itself would ultimately create a govt lead ICANN which i
certainly don't want.
If ICANN functioning under California non profit law - made by
government - and subject to US jurisdiction - also made of and
by governments (and governments alone) - can continue to be
seem and treated as a multistakeholder organisation, to your
and others' satisfaction, there is simply no reason why ICANN
cannot be and function similarly under international
jurisdiction, created by international law.
Your preferring US law/ jurisdiction over international law/
jurisdiction is, simply and nothing more than, a statement of
your preferring the US jurisdiction over international
jurisdiction ( which, while you have a right to your choices,
I consider democratically unfortunate). None is less complex
that the other. There are hundreds of international
organisations functioning under international law, and so can
ICANN. And if ICANN has some special contexts and needs, that
would be met by relevant innovations in international law, but
not by a democratic regression to subjecting the world to the
US law. Democracy is precious, and people have done much to
achieve it. Please dont treat it lightly, citing
technicalities against it. That is extremely unfortunate.
Sorry for the analogy but it directly applies; every tyrant/
dictator is prone to argue that democracy is messy, and
difficult and, as you say, complicated. But such an argument
does not carry, does it.
To call an ICANN which is constituted under US law, and fully
answerable to US jurisdiction (meaning US government, its all
branches), as fully multistakeholder;
and, at the same time, an ICANN functioning exactly in the
same manner, but now under international law and jurisdiction,
as (to quote you) becoming a government let ICANN
is simply to make a misleading statement.
Although, the fallacy contained in it is as clear as daylight,
among status quoists circles this statement or argument
continues to be made and re-made. But, for other than the
fully converted and therefore impervious to simple logic, and
demands of that high value of democracy, it takes away
nothing from the my arguments regarding the unfairness of
ICANN being subject to US jurisdiction, and the urgent need to
move it to international jurisdiction, which you are right, I
have often made on various fora, and will keep making. It is a
political act.
regards, parminder
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 19 Jun 2016 07:28, "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net>
wrote:
On Sunday 19 June 2016 11:31 AM,
Jordan Carter wrote:
I may have missed something,
Parminder, but isn't it a plus rather than a
negative for ICANN accountability that process
errors can be appealed and the company held to
account for them?
Jordan
In may make ICANN accountable, but to a
system that is unaccountable to the global public, and is
only accountable to the US public (there could even be
cases where these two could be in partial conflict) - that
in sum is the jurisdiction issue. ICANN accountability
issue is different, though linked, bec it has to be
accountable, but to the right system, which itself is
accountable to the global public. Different 'layers' of
accountability are implicated here, as people in IG space
will like to say!
Here the issue is, a US court has no right to
(exclusively) adjudicate the rights of the African people,
bec African people had no part in making or legitimising
the system that the US court is a part of. Dont you see
what problem we will be facing if the US court says that
fairness of process or whatever demands that .africa goes
to DCA. If you were an African, what would you feel?
An ICANN under international law will be subject to only
an international judicial process, which Africa is equally
a part of, and gives legitimacy to.
parminder
_______________________________________________
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: 4604/12441 - Release
Date: 06/17/16