Phil is entirely correct.

We have dedicated 20 years since the IFWP of 1998-9 to creating a multistakeholder model.

We cannot seek to change that in pursuit of a perceived immunity that would make ICANN unaccountable.



On 19/12/16 19:49, Phil Corwin wrote:

I believe that requesting views regarding “/providing possible
jurisdictional immunity”/ are both misleading and outside the scope of
this WG.



ICANN based upon the MSM is of necessity an entity that is private in
nature in which civil society, academia, business, and other private
parties formulate policy and governments have a secondary role to
 provide advice. The only entities I know other than nation-states that
enjoy any degree of jurisdictional immunity are International
Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) established by treaty, and in
those organizations governments have the controlling role. Hence,
pursuit of any type of jurisdictional immunity is equivalent to an
effort to change the fundamental nature of ICANN,  as well as being in
violation of the key condition of the IANA transition, which is that
ICANN would not become an IGO. In addition, providing ICANN with
jurisdictional immunity would insulate it from legal process and hence
undermine accountability.



Finally, as I know based upon my current tenure as Co-Chair of the WG
looking at access to curative rights processes by IGOs, when we sought
expert legal advice on the recognized scope of immunity for IGOs we
learned that such immunity is not absolute and that the scope is based
upon the specific fact situation involved as well as the national court
in which the immunity is claimed. Hence, going down this road would
require a tremendous amount of additional legal research dealing with a
variety of hypothetical scenarios in separate national jurisdictions.







*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
*parminder
*Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2016 8:10 AM
*To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results







On Saturday 17 December 2016 12:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

    SNIP

    John Laprise's wording was much, much better:

    "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"


This formulation does not include possibilities of jurisdictional immunity.

Something like


"What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, */or providing possible jurisdictional immunity,/* particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"


would be better.

parminder



_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto: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 <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.



_______________________________________________
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