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

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

+64 21 442 649 
jordan@jordancarter.org.nz