On Sunday 26 June 2016 01:57 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
And is generally declaratory in nature.

Generally, but not always. Look at the investor-to-state dispute settlements system, which provides enforceable means to protect investors' (individual legal entities and not states) rights. EU recently proposed a new Investment Court System for two trade treaties that it is involved in. The same proposal also seeks movement towards an International Investment Court in the future. Note both that this is not declaratory but enforceable international law, and that it involves the rights and claims of individual entities and not states.

No reason why a similar treaty based court cannot be established for DNS related disputes, issuing enforceable judgements.

Internet is primarily global, not becuase of a technical necessity but as a collective value (on the other hand, trade and investment, the subject of about international enforcible law, are only secondarily international). We chose Internet to be global. We could have, and still can, make it national state based. Every country gets a ccTLD, and all domains names are on them, and necessarily have a .in, .us, .de, etc at the end. Like every geographical addresses ends in a country name.

There will be no global level domain name policy left to be dealt with in that case. But we did not do it, becuase we value a 'primarily global' Internet. But to have one, in a legitimate way, we need to be ready to make the necessary innovations in global/international law as well. We cannot have a global Internet without effective global/international law. Basically, we cannot have have a global Internet run by US laws. Period. 
There is if course international private law but ICANN already operates under that.

And international criminal law. Which is irrelevant to us.

Par minder, you may have seen how I challenged another lawyer on this list when he made an unjustified assumption recently.

We say: "what is your authority for that proposition?"

It's what a judge might say.

It means "tell me the rule of law on which you rely "

If as non lawyer you want to join in .. And lawyers do welcome rational submission ..

You should nonetheless expect to be asked this question a LOT.

As I have done above, always happy to answer all questions. Meanwhile, in good lawyerly tradition :) , why you too also not answer some of my questions that are key to framing this debate. Like

(1) What is ICANN's plan to do if it gets adverse US court judgements in .xxx and .africa cases (even  .ir is still in the courts)? Is there no plan at all, which would be absolutely inappropriate for a responsible organisation. Is the plan to just accept the judgements, and make necessary policy/ operational changes? If so, the world needs to know NOW, when jurisdiction is being discussed, and not realise later when the event happens, the enormity of US courts dictating global DNS policy. To repeat, ICANN must right away put forward its plan and position in this regard, which is an absolutely important, actually necessary, thing to know for those discussing the jurisdiction question as part of work stream 2.

(2) These above are existing cases, now with 100s of new gTLDs issued to every kind of organisation and for every kind of activity, you are going to get so many more cases in the US courts of the above kind. What do you plan vis a vis them? Also, please see the hypothetical case in my last email, if rojadirecta takes .rojadirecta as a closed gTLD, and after some time, as they did once earlier through its US based registry, US authorities want to seize the .rojadirecta, which can now only be done at the root file level, and for that sends a order to ICANN, what would ICANN do? Again, necessary to know while we are in middle of jurisdiction decision.

If ICANN officially (highly preferred), or otherwise at least the lawyers here involved on the 'keep US jurisdiction' side of the discussion, can respond to these questions, it would form a good basis to move forward.

 I am sure lawyers will also oblige the non lawyers, as I answered your questions promptly :)

parminder 


Sent from my iPhone


On 26 Jun 2016, at 10:00, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, International Law regulates relations between
states and nations and requires treaties between such
states/nations.

el


On 2016-06-26 07:24 , parminder wrote:



On Saturday 25 June 2016 09:55 PM, Alberto Soto wrote:

What would result if this text, replacing US law by: Italian
laws?  or Belgium laws?  Or …laws?

There is something called international law.....  Like we are an
international community working on an international issue, there
is also international law.
best, parminder

[...]


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