Testimony from Fadi Chehade at the USA Senate hearing
Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Hi Kavouss, At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=... Best regards David
In his testimony, Fadi said “*ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change*.” When I met Fadi two days back in New Delhi, he restated that now is not the time for ICANN to move out of US; instead let's us all focus on stewardship transition. That means ICANN will continue to remain subject to US laws and jurisdiction, and ICANN even isn’t even considering propositions made by several to move ICANN out of US. Also as far as I am aware, the working group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG), is also not debating on this particular aspect. My question is a) What are the Interest of ICANN in continuing to remain subject to US jurisdiction and US laws? And b) If ICANN is to truly emerge as a global institution, and to change the perception of other nation states and stakeholder over USG special relation with ICANN, don’t you think ICANN should move out of US, and ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws? Look forward to views of members. It is really an important issue that should be discussed. Best Regards, Rahul Sharma On 6 March 2015 at 02:57, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
Hi Kavouss,
At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks:
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=...
Best regards
David
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people. The pull for IANA out of America is coming from the UN Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
In his testimony, Fadi said “*ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change*.” When I met Fadi two days back in New Delhi, he restated that now is not the time for ICANN to move out of US; instead let's us all focus on stewardship transition. That means ICANN will continue to remain subject to US laws and jurisdiction, and ICANN even isn’t even considering propositions made by several to move ICANN out of US. Also as far as I am aware, the working group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG), is also not debating on this particular aspect.
My question is a) What are the Interest of ICANN in continuing to remain subject to US jurisdiction and US laws? And b) If ICANN is to truly emerge as a global institution, and to change the perception of other nation states and stakeholder over USG special relation with ICANN, don’t you think ICANN should move out of US, and ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Look forward to views of members. It is really an important issue that should be discussed.
Best Regards,
Rahul Sharma
On 6 March 2015 at 02:57, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
Hi Kavouss,
At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks:
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=...
Best regards
David
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Rahul, The answer is to be found in the hearing / testemony of the Secretary of DOC in Senate Regards Kavouss 2015-03-11 6:10 GMT+01:00 Carrie Devorah <carriedev@gmail.com>:
Hi
ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people.
The pull for IANA out of America is coming from the UN
Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
In his testimony, Fadi said “*ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change*.” When I met Fadi two days back in New Delhi, he restated that now is not the time for ICANN to move out of US; instead let's us all focus on stewardship transition. That means ICANN will continue to remain subject to US laws and jurisdiction, and ICANN even isn’t even considering propositions made by several to move ICANN out of US. Also as far as I am aware, the working group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG), is also not debating on this particular aspect.
My question is a) What are the Interest of ICANN in continuing to remain subject to US jurisdiction and US laws? And b) If ICANN is to truly emerge as a global institution, and to change the perception of other nation states and stakeholder over USG special relation with ICANN, don’t you think ICANN should move out of US, and ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Look forward to views of members. It is really an important issue that should be discussed.
Best Regards,
Rahul Sharma
On 6 March 2015 at 02:57, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
Hi Kavouss,
At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks:
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=...
Best regards
David
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883
DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people.
I consider that to be absolute nonsense Best, Roelof Meijer From: Carrie Devorah <carriedev@gmail.com<mailto:carriedev@gmail.com>> Date: woensdag 11 maart 2015 06:10 To: Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com<mailto:wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Testimony from Fadi Chehade at the USA Senate hearing Hi ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people. The pull for IANA out of America is coming from the UN Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com<http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com<mailto:wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>> wrote: In his testimony, Fadi said “ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change.” When I met Fadi two days back in New Delhi, he restated that now is not the time for ICANN to move out of US; instead let's us all focus on stewardship transition. That means ICANN will continue to remain subject to US laws and jurisdiction, and ICANN even isn’t even considering propositions made by several to move ICANN out of US. Also as far as I am aware, the working group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG), is also not debating on this particular aspect. My question is a) What are the Interest of ICANN in continuing to remain subject to US jurisdiction and US laws? And b) If ICANN is to truly emerge as a global institution, and to change the perception of other nation states and stakeholder over USG special relation with ICANN, don’t you think ICANN should move out of US, and ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws? Look forward to views of members. It is really an important issue that should be discussed. Best Regards, Rahul Sharma On 6 March 2015 at 02:57, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Hi Kavouss, At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=... Best regards David _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Roelof, I for myself have decided not to feed the troll :-)-O el On 2015-03-11 11:47, Roelof Meijer wrote:
ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people.
I consider that to be absolute nonsense
Best,
Roelof Meijer [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I appreciate your thought Roelof. I have documented as best as I can ICANN from before when it was NEWCO- contracts, conversations. There is no speculation. The papers speak. IANA was Jon Postel's baby. Jon was at UCLA working on government projects before USC got involved. The history of IANA goes back to Darpa and Arpa. I am welcome to you providing me, Roelof, with documentation of other governments that funded this Newco evolution. Greg sidebarred me re the Khadi Trademark. Here is the Khadi domain that someone in GB bought. http://www.whois.com/whois/khadi.com As I wrote to Greg the model of "collisions", ICANN's word for 'you are using my Identity aka Trademark/Domain", isnt a model of collision that will be new for Domains. Identity theft or IP/content theft is the same. So it will be a matter of time before Khadi sues the man in GB, too. Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people.
I consider that to be absolute nonsense
Best,
Roelof Meijer
From: Carrie Devorah <carriedev@gmail.com> Date: woensdag 11 maart 2015 06:10 To: Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Testimony from Fadi Chehade at the USA Senate hearing
Hi
ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people.
The pull for IANA out of America is coming from the UN
Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
In his testimony, Fadi said “*ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change*.” When I met Fadi two days back in New Delhi, he restated that now is not the time for ICANN to move out of US; instead let's us all focus on stewardship transition. That means ICANN will continue to remain subject to US laws and jurisdiction, and ICANN even isn’t even considering propositions made by several to move ICANN out of US. Also as far as I am aware, the working group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG), is also not debating on this particular aspect.
My question is a) What are the Interest of ICANN in continuing to remain subject to US jurisdiction and US laws? And b) If ICANN is to truly emerge as a global institution, and to change the perception of other nation states and stakeholder over USG special relation with ICANN, don’t you think ICANN should move out of US, and ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Look forward to views of members. It is really an important issue that should be discussed.
Best Regards,
Rahul Sharma
On 6 March 2015 at 02:57, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
Hi Kavouss,
At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks:
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=...
Best regards
David
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883
DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Hi Carrie, A trans national institution, whose policy decisions aren't subject to laws of any particular nation state is what is required. The global community needs that - if ICANN can fulfill the criteria, much appreciated; else I trust the global community to devise alternative solutions for it. Regards, Rahul Sharma On 11 March 2015 at 10:40, Carrie Devorah <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
ICANN is currently a steward of an endeavor built with American taxpayer money. IANA belongs to the American people.
The pull for IANA out of America is coming from the UN
Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
In his testimony, Fadi said “*ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change*.” When I met Fadi two days back in New Delhi, he restated that now is not the time for ICANN to move out of US; instead let's us all focus on stewardship transition. That means ICANN will continue to remain subject to US laws and jurisdiction, and ICANN even isn’t even considering propositions made by several to move ICANN out of US. Also as far as I am aware, the working group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG), is also not debating on this particular aspect.
My question is a) What are the Interest of ICANN in continuing to remain subject to US jurisdiction and US laws? And b) If ICANN is to truly emerge as a global institution, and to change the perception of other nation states and stakeholder over USG special relation with ICANN, don’t you think ICANN should move out of US, and ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Look forward to views of members. It is really an important issue that should be discussed.
Best Regards,
Rahul Sharma
On 6 March 2015 at 02:57, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the link David. I have attached the PDF of the testimony for convenience.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Friday, 6 March 2015 12:16 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
Hi Kavouss,
At this website is an archived video of the Senate hearing, and you scroll down (all the way under “Witness panel 1”) and click on each witness you can get access to their prepared remarks:
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=...
Best regards
David
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883
DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Rahul: ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws? Wolfgang: Could you specify what "global laws" means?
Obvious, he wants to be above the law :-)-O Personally I have sympathies for that approach, but it ain't gonna happen. el On 2015-03-11 10:39, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
Rahul:
ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Wolfgang: Could you specify what "global laws" means? [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi Wolfgang, Global laws or International law mean codes developed by collaboration of nation states and other stakeholders, whether developed as laws (eg: Law of Armed Conflict) or through multilateral treaties or International acceptable standards/ conventions (such as for human rights) or as code of conduct, that will be applicable to the body managing and coordinating critical Internet resources and their usage, and its policies. Arbitration matters can also be decided - whether to be taken to International Court of Justice (ICJ) or if alternate arrangements need to be devised. What laws and provisions should determine whether a particular domain is acceptable or not, or when domain seizure can take place based on local court decisions citing IP infringement, or whether citizens of a particular nation states can apply for gTLDs or not, or whether domains can be cancelled based on territory? These, and many more, are all teething questions for which global community seeks answer, which just cannot be left without being discussed in detail. I understand Brazilian government too raised this point in GAC meeting in ICANN 52. Different stakeholders from India gathered together yesterday in New Delhi to discuss on developments specifically related to IANA transition and ICANN Accountability. CCWG Co-chair Mathieu Weill also made a brief presentation remotely. When asked about this particular question, he too was surprised that this aspect wasn't discussed in detail by the community. Prof. Milton Mueller too updated us all on ICG activities and he too was surprised why there hasn't been detailed discussion on the subject in the community. Seek inputs of all to discuss this in detail. Warm Regards, Rahul Sharma On 11 March 2015 at 14:09, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Rahul:
ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Wolfgang: Could you specify what "global laws" means?
Rahul, I am only a Gynecologist and not a Lawyer, but in the immortal words of Otter Stratton: "What's the difference?" International Law regulates the behavior between countries and/or multilateral organizations, ie those established by treaties between countries. There are some that do not need treaties such as the Universal Human Rights, Crimes against Humanity, War of Aggression and so fort, but most such International Law is in the form of treaties between countries. Treaties can be bilateral (ie between two countries) or multilateral (ie between several countries) and they are usually ratified in a country by way of legislation. On occasion one reads "country ..... acceded to the International Convention on .......", which clearly implies that there are countries where this International Law does not apply. Hence, a corporation whether for profit or not can by definition not be regulated by International Law. Corporations are subject to national law. In ICCAN's case surely Californian Law, and if it concerns third party outside of California, US Federal Law applies, as well. However, it also depends where a company is trading and/or has a presence. Courts generally seem to find they have jurisdiction if they can enforce their judgements. This is easy in case where there are assets. It might also be the case if an office bearer is within the jurisdiction. If, as in the case of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, FIFA or the TB Fund a national (the Swiss) government enters into an agreement to immunize the other party, that obviously is national. If other countries do the same with Red Cross/Red Crescent, it remains national in each of these other countries. I think this topic has flittered by the mailing list, actually or one of the calls. My understanding of Mr Strickland is in any case that the IANA "stewardship" transition shall not be to a multilateral (ie treaty) organization, but to a multistakeholder one. And, Professor Dr Mueller expressing surprise is not a yardstick of Accountability, or rather of anything, by any means. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 14, 2015, at 12:41, Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
Global laws or International law mean codes developed by collaboration of nation states and other stakeholders, whether developed as laws (eg: Law of Armed Conflict) or through multilateral treaties or International acceptable standards/ conventions (such as for human rights) or as code of conduct, that will be applicable to the body managing and coordinating critical Internet resources and their usage, and its policies. Arbitration matters can also be decided - whether to be taken to International Court of Justice (ICJ) or if alternate arrangements need to be devised.
What laws and provisions should determine whether a particular domain is acceptable or not, or when domain seizure can take place based on local court decisions citing IP infringement, or whether citizens of a particular nation states can apply for gTLDs or not, or whether domains can be cancelled based on territory? These, and many more, are all teething questions for which global community seeks answer, which just cannot be left without being discussed in detail. I understand Brazilian government too raised this point in GAC meeting in ICANN 52.
Different stakeholders from India gathered together yesterday in New Delhi to discuss on developments specifically related to IANA transition and ICANN Accountability. CCWG Co-chair Mathieu Weill also made a brief presentation remotely. When asked about this particular question, he too was surprised that this aspect wasn't discussed in detail by the community. Prof. Milton Mueller too updated us all on ICG activities and he too was surprised why there hasn't been detailed discussion on the subject in the community.
Seek inputs of all to discuss this in detail.
Warm Regards, Rahul Sharma
On 11 March 2015 at 14:09, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: Rahul:
ICANN & its functions should be subject to global laws, not state of California laws?
Wolfgang: Could you specify what "global laws" means?
[...]
participants (8)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Bruce Tonkin -
Carrie Devorah -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Kavouss Arasteh -
Rahul Sharma -
Roelof Meijer