The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa
The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyers-califo... Paul Rosenzweig
Profound el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On 18 Jun 2016, at 23:43, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> wrote:
The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyers-califo...
Paul Rosenzweig
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Profound MM: No, unbearably superficial. “Lawyers in California are denying Africans their own domain” - No, the dispute is between two different groups of Africans “ACR’s ace was not just that it had the support of almost three-quarters of African countries (it needed 60%) but that it had been chosen by the African Union” - No, not three-quarters of Africans but ¾ of African _Governments_, which is not quite the same as the African people. I bet if you took a vote, Mr Lisse, that ¾ of African heads of state might prefer that you not operate the ccTLD for Namibia. ;-) “because several African governments objected to it.” - Yeah, they objected because they wanted it. Governments object to lots of things that they shouldn’t (like free expression) and ask for lots of things they shouldn’t have (like monopolies on telecom services) I see that the predictable parties are attempting to make this an identity politics issue, but it’s not. It’s fundamentally about process and the main issue is the fairness of ICANN’s decision. It’s perfectly appropriate for that issue to be settled in California courts. If ICANN is to be accountable is has to follow its defined policies and procedures.
Dear Co-Chairs, I think I have asked you already to instruct this individual not to email to my private email address. I really would appreciate if you could arrange that he doesn't do so again. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 19 Jun 2016, at 22:46, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Profound
MM: No, unbearably superficial.
“Lawyers in California are denying Africans their own domain” - No, the dispute is between two different groups of Africans
“ACR’s ace was not just that it had the support of almost three-quarters of African countries (it needed 60%) but that it had been chosen by the African Union” - No, not three-quarters of Africans but ¾ of African _Governments_, which is not quite the same as the African people. I bet if you took a vote, Mr Lisse, that ¾ of African heads of state might prefer that you not operate the ccTLD for Namibia. ;-)
“because several African governments objected to it.” - Yeah, they objected because they wanted it. Governments object to lots of things that they shouldn’t (like free expression) and ask for lots of things they shouldn’t have (like monopolies on telecom services)
I see that the predictable parties are attempting to make this an identity politics issue, but it’s not. It’s fundamentally about process and the main issue is the fairness of ICANN’s decision. It’s perfectly appropriate for that issue to be settled in California courts. If ICANN is to be accountable is has to follow its defined policies and procedures.
On 19 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Profound
“ACR’s ace was not just that it had the support of almost three-quarters of African countries (it needed 60%) but that it had been chosen by the African Union” - No, not three-quarters of Africans but ¾ of African _Governments_, which is not quite the same as the African people. I bet if you took a vote, Mr Lisse, that ¾ of African heads of state might prefer that you not operate the ccTLD for Namibia. ;-)
Touché! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Dear Co-Chairs, I think I have asked you already to instruct this individual not to email to my private email address. I really would appreciate if you could arrange that he doesn't do so again. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 20 Jun 2016, at 14:14, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
On 19 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Profound
“ACR’s ace was not just that it had the support of almost three-quarters of African countries (it needed 60%) but that it had been chosen by the African Union” - No, not three-quarters of Africans but ¾ of African _Governments_, which is not quite the same as the African people. I bet if you took a vote, Mr Lisse, that ¾ of African heads of state might prefer that you not operate the ccTLD for Namibia. ;-)
Touché!
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
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-califo...
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
On Sunday 19 June 2016 10:56 AM, parminder 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-califo...
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.
While the democratic logic of this should be self-evident, that the global public cannot be made subject to laws and judicial processes that it took no part in shaping (I call it 'no legislation without representation') let me still explain further the inherent risk in this specific kind of situation. Were it the issue of a US state, say, Arizona, and .Arizona, was in similar dispute, a US court will be *primarily* concerned with the larger public/ community interest involved, and pay particular attention to what the Economist describes as "regional names that are, in a sense, a virtual commons", as it weighs that claim against the procedural fairness demands of US contract law, non profit incorporation law, and so on. However, if the 'region' and the 'public' involved is non US, as in this case, the attention to the technicalities of the latter aspects of US laws vis a vis the wider ' (non US) public interest and claim' can easily be expected to be very different. And this is absolutely wrong, and unacceptable. parminder
parminder
Paul Rosenzweig
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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-califo...
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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
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 <mailto: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-califo...
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 <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
-- Jordan Carter Wellington, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 jordan@jordancarter.org.nz <mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz>
Jordan ' What you say is 100% correct. But is 100% irrelevant to the point the article makes. Which is that Africa once again - this time in cyberspace - is subject to the ultimate authority of the judiciary of a 'colonial power'. The history of the Dominions, such as Canada, Australia and NZ and their evolution into independent nations between the mid-19th century, and reaching full independence in the 1980s was such a gradual and non-violent process that it might be hard for me and you to understand the symbolism and sensitivities fully. Of course there always needs to be a judicial tribunal where process errors in international contracts can be appealed. In shipping, this is commonly London/English law, NY/New York law, or Cairo. Personally I think that the California courts are quite well placed to keep ICANN on the straight and narrow, much as I myself think London would be better. But, it seems to me, from the point of view of Africa, no matter what the technical (i.e. legal) advantages in the Rule of Law, the optics are unfortunate, and that appears to be the point of the article. On 19/06/16 07:01, 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
On 19 June 2016 at 07:26, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto: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-califo...
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 <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
-- Jordan Carter Wellington, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 jordan@jordancarter.org.nz <mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (7)
-
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Jordan Carter -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig