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



Jordan

On 19 June 2016 at 07:26, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:


On Sunday 19 June 2016 04:13 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyers-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg%7Cd


 Not that this fact is being discovered now, but it still is the simplest and clearest proof that US jurisdiction over ICANN's policy processes and decisions is absolutely untenable. Either the US makes a special legal provision unilaterally foregoing judicial, legislative and executive jurisdiction over ICANN policy functions, or the normal route of ICANN's incorporation under international law is taken, making ICANN an international organisation under international law, and protected from US jurisdiction under a host country agreement.

parminder

Paul Rosenzweig



_______________________________________________
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




--
Jordan Carter
Wellington, New Zealand




_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community