The crusade for clarity continues
Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I've been called a "crusader." (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting "US jurisdiction as such," I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions
MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.)
can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders?
MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
"Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do." This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss
2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions
MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.)
can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders?
MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
_______________________________________________ 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
On Friday 30 December 2016 04:29 AM, John Laprise wrote:
"Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do."
OK, John, then come to India, I hope you'd agree all stable democracies provide stable jurisdictions, or at least most of them do. Lets incorporate ICANN in India. Of course, you are going to say but it is already incorporated in the US, why change. (It is always so much easier to defend the status quo!). I will tell you why change. A lot of non USians, Indians among them, have shown discomfort with the application of the current and future US public law to ICANN, and consider it unacceptable, on the "no legislation without representation" principle, which is very basic to democratic thinking. However, somehow, somewhat miraculously (almost) all US based participants here seem to have developed a strong collective view that "application of a country's public law to ICANN simply does not matter" (if this is not the view of most US participants here, pl do let me know that) . Ok, I say then, if "application of a country's public law to ICANN simply does not matter", shift to India, and let Indian public laws apply. Since it seems to be all the same to USian participants here , but non USian/ Indian participants are bothered about the issue of US public law, we solve what is a problem in the eyes of many without taking away anything from others who dont see the problem. Since, US participants seem not to have any problem with public laws application in any case. But of course, this is just a hypothetical formulation to try to make the problem of jurisdiction clearer. I am sure people here will never contemplate such a lowly thing as moving ICANN to India! Guys, I have asked this question a few times here, but never get a response. But I wont stop asking. Would the USians here have accepted if ICANN had been incorporated in India, and sought no change? Try to honestly answer this question - if you wont do it publicly, just to yourself. parminder
This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss
2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>:
Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions
MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.)
can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders?
MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Friday 30 December 2016 04:29 AM, John Laprise wrote:
"Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do."
This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all,
For the present let me keep the possibility of international law's jurisdiction apart, can you tell me how keeping ICANN as US non profit but with jurisdictional immunities under US's International Orgs Immunities Act is not a superior jurisdictional status that the current one? Acceptable to all, that is the interesting part; we wont have had abolishing of slavery in the US if it awaited acceptance by all. A small group benefiting form the status quo cannot hold the global public to ransom. If it does insists in doing so, citing self-serving procedural stuff, that the change will be forced to come from other, perhaps less palatable, routes.... parminder
the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss
2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>:
Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions
MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.)
can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders?
MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"? From: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do."This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Professor,You put too much emphasis on private .Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments RegardsKavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>: Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by various entities) broken down into component attributes. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"? _____ From: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> " <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do." This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> >: Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Other criteria might include ease of access to courts and other forms of redress (e.g., arbitration), including timing and predictability of results, and ease of enforcing judgments (including enforcing judgments abroad). Political and financial stability and personal safety could also come into play. Government policies such as strength of freedom of speech and any history of unilaterally nationalizing businesses could also be criteria. In this specific instance, we would need to look at whether the accountability mechanisms that the CCWG arrived at in WS1 could be carried out under that jurisdiction's laws. As John Laprise notes, there are multiple complex criteria, and we could possibly get information from outside entities that measure various criteria if this was something to be pursued. Greg On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:24 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by various entities) broken down into component attributes.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com] *Sent:* Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues
What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"?
------------------------------
*From:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; "Mueller, Milton L" < milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross- community@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues
"Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do."
This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Professor,
You put too much emphasis on private .
Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions
MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.)
can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders?
MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
And once the criteria have been established, I think we’d also need to clearly demonstrate whether/how the current (US/California) jurisdiction fails to deliver on some/all of these identified points. Thank you, J. ----- James Bladel From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 16:00 To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues Other criteria might include ease of access to courts and other forms of redress (e.g., arbitration), including timing and predictability of results, and ease of enforcing judgments (including enforcing judgments abroad). Political and financial stability and personal safety could also come into play. Government policies such as strength of freedom of speech and any history of unilaterally nationalizing businesses could also be criteria. In this specific instance, we would need to look at whether the accountability mechanisms that the CCWG arrived at in WS1 could be carried out under that jurisdiction's laws. As John Laprise notes, there are multiple complex criteria, and we could possibly get information from outside entities that measure various criteria if this was something to be pursued. Greg On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:24 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by various entities) broken down into component attributes. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com<mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com>] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"? ________________________________ From: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do." This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>: Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Strongly agree. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:03 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues And once the criteria have been established, I think we’d also need to clearly demonstrate whether/how the current (US/California) jurisdiction fails to deliver on some/all of these identified points. Thank you, J. ----- James Bladel From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 16:00 To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues Other criteria might include ease of access to courts and other forms of redress (e.g., arbitration), including timing and predictability of results, and ease of enforcing judgments (including enforcing judgments abroad). Political and financial stability and personal safety could also come into play. Government policies such as strength of freedom of speech and any history of unilaterally nationalizing businesses could also be criteria. In this specific instance, we would need to look at whether the accountability mechanisms that the CCWG arrived at in WS1 could be carried out under that jurisdiction's laws. As John Laprise notes, there are multiple complex criteria, and we could possibly get information from outside entities that measure various criteria if this was something to be pursued. Greg On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:24 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > wrote: Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by various entities) broken down into component attributes. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com <mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com> ] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> ; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"? _____ From: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> " <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do." This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> >: Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Greg Shatan -
James M. Bladel -
John Laprise -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
parminder -
Zakir Syed