Hi Rubens
I think the interference in .ir and Syria case is quite different from .africa. , .In .ir case the claimant had a judgment against iran which it had obtained through the us courts relying on US laws and wanted to enforce the judgement through attaching .ir to the claimant. I call that interference. In .africa two competing organizations have a dispute over the delegation of .africa. I am not sure if we can compare the two.
Dear Phil,
I can´t fully follow your segmentation
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.
Agree
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,
why not? Who is going to hear the case set liabilities and eventually compensation????
or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.
Agree
_______________________________________________
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