Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Apr 2016 6:03 a.m., "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
The substantive point it; is to proceed from an existing case, rojadirecta had taken a gTLD, it were .rojadirecta (or for wikipedia's case .wikipedia), and the same case had come to the same US court, where would its order to take down the web presence of the respective businesses be directed? Would you care to respond to this point? Thanks.
SO: Not Alejandro but I would say in theory that such order may go to the registry first but could also go to ICANN and whether ICANN would comply depends on the existing agreements ICANN has with the registry running .rojadirecta. However it's one thing to receive an order, it's another thing to comply, that's why ICANN has legal team who try to defend/explain/educate in such cases (if it exists) However, I guess your question above still begs the response of asking what will be different if it was a non-US order; will ICANN not receive an order if it's based outside USA? Will ICANN not receive an order if it's based on treaties? Cheers!
parminder
This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this statement will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the statement.)
Alejandro Pisanty
<message tail snipped>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Saturday 09 April 2016 10:57 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
snip
SO: Not Alejandro but I would say in theory that such order may go to the registry first
I must again make it clear...I am talking about businesses owning their own gTLD, in which case the concerned business, say rojadirecta or 'sunpharma', taking from examples I have used, would be its own registry.... And these will be based outside the US. Since these, in principle, are the 'offending businesses' not subjecting themselves to US jurisdictional orders, there is indeed no point in sending a court order to the concerned business (which is also its registry for its own closed gTLD) to close down its own gLTD... Why would it do such a thing?
but could also go to ICANN
Yes, therefore, the order can only plausibly go to ICANN, which has the means to completely remove the whole gTLD (and with precision, nothing other than the gTLD)... A court directs its orders to all or any agency under its jurisdiction which has means to carry it out...
and whether ICANN would comply depends on the existing agreements ICANN has with the registry running .rojadirecta. However it's one thing to receive an order, it's another thing to comply, that's why ICANN has legal team who try to defend/explain/educate in such cases (if it exists)
Dear Seun, court orders are court order, and so are of the other empowered US agencies (those which have been seizing domain names)... They cannot not be complied with. ICANN officials can be arrested if they are not... Yes, you could contest them (although in some case the contest may only follow interim observance of orders) but then only if you succeed can you not carry out the orders. If you do not, you simply obey them. We are talking of that very likely eventuality. Just bec you have a legal team, and maybe an expensive one at that, does not means you necessarily win all your cases. it would be such a travesty of justice if this were to be the case... How can you/ we go by the supposition that ICANN will necessarily win all its challenges, always, especially when there is a long history in the US of domain names siezures, and the law remains the same as it always was....... That is very thin grounds for us to build and sustain a global governance system like ICANN.
However, I guess your question above still begs the response of asking what will be different if it was a non-US order; will ICANN not receive an order if it's based outside USA?
I dont see ICANN receiving orders unless it just have to.... and it does not have to, in case of non US jurisdictions.
Will ICANN not receive an order if it's based on treaties?
Yes, of course....One of the main purposes of such a treaty would be to earn for ICANN immunity from host country jurisdiction. All treaty based international organisations have that.. parminder
Cheers!
parminder
This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this statement will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the statement.)
Alejandro Pisanty
<message tail snipped>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Apr 2016 06:53, "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
However, I guess your question above still begs the response of asking
what will be different if it was a non-US order; will ICANN not receive an order if it's based outside USA?
I dont see ICANN receiving orders unless it just have to.... and it does
not have to, in case of non US jurisdictions.
SO: ... What non US jurisdiction will make it not receive such order?
Will ICANN not receive an order if it's based on treaties?
Yes, of course....One of the main purposes of such a treaty would be to
earn for ICANN immunity from host country jurisdiction. All treaty based international organisations have that..
SO: As attractive as this may seem and you may be surprised that I also wish this were possible but I think we must also face the reality of what it takes to get such treaties? especially the duration. ICANN serves the global community, so what will the implications be for the countries that does not sign the treaties? how does ICANN maintain its current multistakeholder nature if founded on such treaties?. I think this is just a matter of priorities; we should weigh which is more important than the other and I think preservation of the multistakeholder nature of ICANN, it's openness and it's structure is of importance than the threat of jurisdiction which doesn't happen often (and only affects a scenario when it happens). Regards
parminder
Cheers!
parminder
This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this statement
will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the statement.)
Alejandro Pisanty
<message tail snipped>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Saturday 09 April 2016 11:45 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
snip
Yes, of course....One of the main purposes of such a treaty would be
to earn for ICANN immunity from host country jurisdiction. All treaty based international organisations have that..
SO: As attractive as this may seem and you may be surprised that I also wish this were possible but I think we must also face the reality of what it takes to get such treaties? especially the duration.
Seun, Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an insurmountable problem. We do not have a solution to that problem. And this problem is not a peripheral one but goes to the heart of ICANN's main public function of providing domain name services, globally, hopefully in a fair and just way... Now for the treaty that could rid ICANN of this problem, you have come back to a very weak argument... time needed to do such a treaty... First of all, I have been hearing this argument for more than a decade now, enough time to write a treaty many times over. Second, it is just for the US to agree and such a treaty would take less time than what the IANA oversight process is taking. I dont think we can keep repeating this specious argument - treaties take too much time, over and over again, when a key global governance issue faces us. Hundreds of global governance problems get addressed bec some people first decide that yes a treaty is in order, like the recent climate change one... Where would the world be if everyone just kept saying well treaties take too long... And after all, if we agree that a treaty is the right thing (do you?) then let it take the time it takes, meanwhile you still have the status quo system working in the interim. So, lets discuss what is right and what wrong, not the time a solution would take (which, as I said, is not going to be a lot)
ICANN serves the global community, so what will the implications be for the countries that does not sign the treaties?
Same way as ICANN serves all countries now, even when they do not form or participate in the US jurisdiction... This is no problem at all... First of all, I dont see why a country wont sign, but even if it did not, it still gets full services (with the option of signing the treaty open).
how does ICANN maintain its current multistakeholder nature if founded on such treaties?.
Unlike what many think, and Roberto Gaetano has argued, a treaty does not necessarily mean inter-gov mechanism for a body's functioning, I am asking for a treaty that simply establishes international law that allows ICANN to stay and function exactly as it does at present.... At present it does so under US law - which mind it, is not multilateral, but state based, of a single state - after the treaty it will function on the same ms way under the established international law.... what is the difference, other than trusting a single state, the US, in the extant situation, more than all states put together (and able to act only by consensus), in the proposed new one... I by far trust the later more.
I think this is just a matter of priorities; we should weigh which is more important than the other and I think preservation of the multistakeholder nature of ICANN, it's openness and it's structure is of importance
that remains protected, in my proposal through an international legal guarantee, rather than a US state based, as currently....
than the threat of jurisdiction which doesn't happen often (and only affects a scenario when it happens).
This is weak.... you are saying it does not matter if ICANN's governance is not fair and just to the extent that, say, an Indian generic drug company avoids taking a gTLD that it otherwise wants to and should have a right to.... What good than ICANN is, what good is its elaborate gov mechanism when it fails in this primary function... parminder
Regards
parminder
Cheers!
parminder
This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this
statement will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the statement.)
Alejandro Pisanty
<message tail snipped>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Parminder: Unlike what many think, and Roberto Gaetano has argued, a treaty does not necessarily mean inter-gov mechanism for a body's functioning, I am asking for a treaty that simply establishes international law that allows ICANN to stay and function exactly as it does at present.... It was my intention not to further comment to this thread, that is bringing us nowhere, because we disagree, and are both unable to convince the other party. So, we are all losing time. However, since you call me directly in your message, I will provide a *last* reply. Treaties are done by governments, not civil society. We are the internet user community, governments are in the GAC. If you believe it is an easy thing to do, please go ahead and do it. As I told you already, go and convince governments, and come back with something we can work on that is not just fluff – or ether. Since you are insisting in not doing that, I matured the convincement that you are well aware that what you propose will not be supported by governments, and you are just playing politics: words, that go nowhere. Actually, did you propose this to the GAC, which would be the appropriate forum? If yes, what was the answer? If no, why not? If I see a meaningful draft, endorsed by a substantial number of governments, I will apologize to you and collaborate. Until I do not see this, I will remain of my opinion, that you are proposing something that is unfeasible. Cheers, Roberto
Roberto, I'm a grassroots guy trying to find a way for the Net to address the needs of my neighborhood. And a lot of this global stuff goes over my head. But if the GAC were to move ahead on a treaty, I suspect many of us would say "Hey! This is supposed to be a bottom up process. The governments pushing a treaty, no way, top-down, boo." Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.) But I'm not in love with the idea of a traditional treaty organization. Perhaps we could address the issues raised in a creative manner, break with tradition and fashion a multi-stakeholder treaty. For a start, perhaps we could present the states with an outline of what the At-Large sees as a suitable outcome, solicit their thoughts, while suggesting that the solution should include a continuing role for the At-Large. And see what they draft. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 4/9/2016 10:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Parminder:
Unlike what many think, and Roberto Gaetano has argued, a treaty does not necessarily mean inter-gov mechanism for a body's functioning, I am asking for a treaty that simply establishes international law that allows ICANN to stay and function exactly as it does at present....
It was my intention not to further comment to this thread, that is bringing us nowhere, because we disagree, and are both unable to convince the other party.
So, we are all losing time.
However, since you call me directly in your message, I will provide a **last** reply.
Treaties are done by governments, not civil society. We are the internet user community, governments are in the GAC.
If you believe it is an easy thing to do, please go ahead and do it. As I told you already, go and convince governments, and come back with something we can work on that is not just fluff – or ether.
Since you are insisting in not doing that, I matured the convincement that you are well aware that what you propose will not be supported by governments, and you are just playing politics: words, that go nowhere.
Actually, did you propose this to the GAC, which would be the appropriate forum? If yes, what was the answer? If no, why not?
If I see a meaningful draft, endorsed by a substantial number of governments, I will apologize to you and collaborate. Until I do not see this, I will remain of my opinion, that you are proposing something that is unfeasible.
Cheers,
Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I believe treaties are, by definition and tradition, between sovereign governments. Individuals would not have power to bind governments in a relationship. Individuals could bind one another in an international agreement, but how to get everyone who uses the Internet to agree on an international agreement? Click "I agree" each time you use the Internet J From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:52 AM To: Roberto Gaetano; 'parminder' Cc: Tom lowenhaupt at google; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government? Roberto, I'm a grassroots guy trying to find a way for the Net to address the needs of my neighborhood. And a lot of this global stuff goes over my head. But if the GAC were to move ahead on a treaty, I suspect many of us would say "Hey! This is supposed to be a bottom up process. The governments pushing a treaty, no way, top-down, boo." Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.) But I'm not in love with the idea of a traditional treaty organization. Perhaps we could address the issues raised in a creative manner, break with tradition and fashion a multi-stakeholder treaty. For a start, perhaps we could present the states with an outline of what the At-Large sees as a suitable outcome, solicit their thoughts, while suggesting that the solution should include a continuing role for the At-Large. And see what they draft. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 4/9/2016 10:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: Parminder: Unlike what many think, and Roberto Gaetano has argued, a treaty does not necessarily mean inter-gov mechanism for a body's functioning, I am asking for a treaty that simply establishes international law that allows ICANN to stay and function exactly as it does at present.... It was my intention not to further comment to this thread, that is bringing us nowhere, because we disagree, and are both unable to convince the other party. So, we are all losing time. However, since you call me directly in your message, I will provide a *last* reply. Treaties are done by governments, not civil society. We are the internet user community, governments are in the GAC. If you believe it is an easy thing to do, please go ahead and do it. As I told you already, go and convince governments, and come back with something we can work on that is not just fluff - or ether. Since you are insisting in not doing that, I matured the convincement that you are well aware that what you propose will not be supported by governments, and you are just playing politics: words, that go nowhere. Actually, did you propose this to the GAC, which would be the appropriate forum? If yes, what was the answer? If no, why not? If I see a meaningful draft, endorsed by a substantial number of governments, I will apologize to you and collaborate. Until I do not see this, I will remain of my opinion, that you are proposing something that is unfeasible. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Thomas, On 09/04/2016 20:51, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.)
The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN Member States. http://www.un.org/en/member-states/ Where is Civil Society? Where are End Users? Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? Where is the Private Sector? Kindest regards, Olivier
Olivier, I got from Thomas's email that he proposes that we go outside of current norms and create a multistakeholder treaty model that incorporates all our stakeholder groups. Of course it doesn't exist now but we are in a transition phase so perhaps its timely. Maureen On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Thomas,
On 09/04/2016 20:51, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.)
The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN Member States. http://www.un.org/en/member-states/
Where is Civil Society? Where are End Users? Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? Where is the Private Sector?
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Maureen, yes, of course one could always re-design the World from scratch. But that's something that might take a lifetime. In the meantime, even the "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" is losing its lustre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independence_of_Cyberspac... Kindest regards, Olivier On 09/04/2016 22:18, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Olivier,
I got from Thomas's email that he proposes that we go outside of current norms and create a multistakeholder treaty model that incorporates all our stakeholder groups. Of course it doesn't exist now but we are in a transition phase so perhaps its timely.
Maureen
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Thomas,
On 09/04/2016 20:51, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought > bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see > some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.)
The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN Member States. http://www.un.org/en/member-states/
Where is Civil Society? Where are End Users? Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? Where is the Private Sector?
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Olivier, As you stated: ...you take the example of Rojadirecta having applied successfully for top level domain Rojadirecta - and what you are saying is that there could be a request through a US court for this top level domain to be removed from the Root. Using your words, that would "take down the web presence of the respective businesses" -- all of the domain names under .rojadirecta would be affected. Well, you're right. Perhaps that's why Rojadirecta prefers operating under a variety of top level domains that are not run by a US Registry rather than running its own Top Level Domain. So it seems you agree with Parminder, that .rojadirecta's being forced to operate under U.S. jurisdiction necessarily results in their seeking alternatives. I read your position as, if I may paraphrase, "If they're not willing to abide by U.S. law they should take a hike." And Parminder is saying "this is unfair, U.S. rules should not be global." I lean toward Parminder. But I'm not sure an engagement argument based on aiding a giant corporation will resonate with our members, who represent the interests of individual internet users. However, it seems obvious that no single nation's laws should rule the Internet. As such, it might be appropriate that an initiative for an equitable and stable global governance process for the root should begin here. Best, Tom On 4/9/2016 3:57 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Thomas,
On 09/04/2016 20:51, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.) The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN Member States. http://www.un.org/en/member-states/
Where is Civil Society? Where are End Users? Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? Where is the Private Sector?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> [2016-04-09 21:57:46 +0200]:
The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN Member States. http://www.un.org/en/member-states/
Where is Civil Society? Where are End Users? Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? Where is the Private Sector?
The UN is based on a treaty. Yet the IGF has civil society, has end users, has technical & academic communities and private sector. Please do not confuse the instrument and the actual body created/recognized by the instrument. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 26 Apr 2016 16:52, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> [2016-04-09 21:57:46 +0200]:
The UN is based on a treaty. Yet the IGF has civil society, has end
users, has technical & academic communities and private sector.
SO: I can tell you that if IGF was delivering properly there won't have been need for other parallel groups. I can also tell you that IGF has been able to be productive/open to the extent that it is presently because of the effort of those groups you mentioned above and not necessarily because the UN wanted that by default. Those efforts I must tell you has taken so much time and volunteer resource. I don't think we should put organisation like ICANN in such operational limbo.
Please do not confuse the instrument and the actual body created/recognized by the instrument.
SO: I will also say do not confuse IGF which is typically an event that discusses theory with an organisation like ICANN that works on operational stuff which the internet as we know it today depend on to function. I can assure you that the progress made by the groups you mentioned above within IGF will not have been allowed by UN if it were ICANN. This is about power and control my dear. Regards
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Seun, Your response goes off on a tangent, doesn't address the points I've raised in my e-mail, and shows that you are unable to decide whether the IGF has made progress ("the progress made by the groups you mentioned": indicates you believe progress has been made) or not ("if IGF was delivering properly": indicating it has not). My simple point, which you have not refuted, is that a treaty can be a basis for or can recognize a multistakeholder organization (e.g., the ILO). At any rate, there have been calls for a long while for changing the current legal structure of ICANN. Of course, people on this list are liable to view these as not "important": Here are some demands from the civil society caucus (IGC) at WSIS in 2005:
“ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community. "ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules. … "It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed [Internet Governance] Forum."
https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/sca/hbf-29.doc Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
ICANN is not the internet user community, it is a bunch of hard-working, intelligent, merited internet industry connected people with enough earned merits in their professional and educational careers to be allowed to speak to one another and participate in the ICANN in-crowd without harrassing each other. New people without merit are flushed out of the ICANN system as soon as their lack of merit is identified by the guardians of that unwritten rule, the 'stop spamming' bullies and their ombudsman who has plenty of better things to do in New Zealand than care about reforming this exclusionary meritocracy he can only arbitrate for. ICANN is no different than a harvard or yale social club that looks down on ideas presented by unmerited outside nobody people, whom the club disrespects simply because of their supposed lack of business card merits on their SOI. If your SOI isn't valid to the unwritten, but prominent ICANN rule, merits=free speech, you are ganged up on, insulted, antagonized and condescended until the 'neutral' ICANN ombudsman censors you, thats the playbook, how the power structure of the meritocracy of ICANN keeps milking the golden cow, paid for trips all over the world, feeling important, like 'progress is occurring', justifying their merits, building their resume, conference after conference, call after call, "much accomplished but so much left to do" or "even as we continue to succeed, there is more work to be done", feel free to insert your own nonsense phrase, designed to selfcongradulate oneself and/or ones group for what actually amounts to masking 'progress' in a scheme of status quo continuance. U.S. Congress, please do not transfer the internet to a meritocratic oligarchy of merited people pretending to be 'the internet community'. The technological progress of earth is zero because the global meritocracy was smart enough to figure out how to maintain the status quo while making it look like travel=progress to populations yearning for progress but will only get driveless cars and drones delivering packages they increasingly cannot afford. Ron
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>
Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an insurmountable problem.
They face a binary decision. Do we sign a Registry Agreement, which contract is adjudicated under California law, or not. You say that is a problem, the rest of us do not agree, seemingly. We do
not have a solution to that problem. And this problem is not a peripheral one but goes to the heart of ICANN's main public function of providing domain name services, globally, hopefully in a fair and just way...
Now for the treaty that could rid ICANN of this problem, you have come back to a very weak argument... time needed to do such a treaty
The main objection to your treaty plan is that the vast majority (my opinion) of the ICANN community would not want this. I don't think you could convince nearly enough of the Community to support such a plan. You may get a few GAC Members, but politics is the art of the possible. After the last few years of IANA transition, there is IMHO, zero appetite to even consider such a notion. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-09 11:26:55 -0400]:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an insurmountable problem.
They face a binary decision. Do we sign a Registry Agreement, which contract is adjudicated under California law, or not.
You say that is a problem, the rest of us do not agree, seemingly.
"The rest of us" is a pretty big claim, McTim. Do you have a poll? In fact, the issue of jurisdiction (of ICANN, of the RMZ, of PTI, and of ICANN contracts) was raised in multiple submissions to the ICG in September. Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-09 11:26:55 -0400]:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an insurmountable problem.
They face a binary decision. Do we sign a Registry Agreement, which contract is adjudicated under California law, or not.
You say that is a problem, the rest of us do not agree, seemingly.
"The rest of us" is a pretty big claim, McTim. Do you have a poll?
See the # of folks who do not agree with you on this list.
In fact, the issue of jurisdiction (of ICANN, of the RMZ, of PTI, and of ICANN contracts) was raised in multiple submissions to the ICG in September.
Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.
It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big a lift at that moment). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-26 11:56:53 -0400]:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.
It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big a lift at that moment).
Perhaps it is no coincidence that a majority of the submissions from civil society organizations based in India to the ICG raised the issue of jurisdiction. But in the final ICG report, there is no explanation (I know, I searched) as to why the jurisdiction-related concerns raised in those submissions (as part of WS1 and as part of the ICG's mandate) were deemed sufficiently unimportant so as not to merit discussion or reflection in the report. What an utter farce. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-26 11:56:53 -0400]:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.
It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big a lift at that moment).
Perhaps it is no coincidence that a majority of the submissions from civil society organizations based in India to the ICG raised the issue of jurisdiction.
I don't think it was a coincidence at all, it seemed to be a concerted effort on your part, right? Still, that is irrelevant.
But in the final ICG report, there is no explanation (I know, I searched) as to why the jurisdiction-related concerns raised in those submissions (as part of WS1 and as part of the ICG's mandate) were deemed sufficiently unimportant so as not to merit discussion or reflection in the report.
I think you are being disingenous here, you know full well the conditions on the outcome of the process set by DoC. Insisting on changing jurisdiction would have scuttled the entire transition. Or was that your goal? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-26 12:44:06 -0400]:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
But in the final ICG report, there is no explanation (I know, I searched) as to why the jurisdiction-related concerns raised in those submissions (as part of WS1 and as part of the ICG's mandate) were deemed sufficiently unimportant so as not to merit discussion or reflection in the report.
I think you are being disingenous here, you know full well the conditions on the outcome of the process set by DoC.
Insisting on changing jurisdiction would have scuttled the entire transition.
I argued with Milton at the 2015 IGF on this very point. If this was a condition, then it should have been stated. I can't see anywhere that the NTIA/DoC has stated this as a condition. What is the point of having this (illegitimate) condition, and then pretending that "we" the "global" "multistakeholder" "community" have actually decided the fate of ICANN. If the emperor is wearing no clothes, I see no point in pretending otherwise.
Or was that your goal?
What an asinine question. Even if rhetorical, it does you disservice. Is the goal of someone who is calling for true independence rather than a fig leaf of independence the scuttling of independence? -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
Dear Pranesh, having followed the CCWG’s work closely, I can tell you that it is not that jurisdiction was deemed as unimportant but rather as extremely complex to be dealt with as part of WS1. Hence its inclusion as par of the WS2 plan. Best regards, León
El 26/04/2016, a las 11:02 a.m., Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> escribió:
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-26 11:56:53 -0400]:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.
It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big a lift at that moment).
Perhaps it is no coincidence that a majority of the submissions from civil society organizations based in India to the ICG raised the issue of jurisdiction.
But in the final ICG report, there is no explanation (I know, I searched) as to why the jurisdiction-related concerns raised in those submissions (as part of WS1 and as part of the ICG's mandate) were deemed sufficiently unimportant so as not to merit discussion or reflection in the report.
What an utter farce.
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (11)
-
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Maureen Hilyard -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
parminder -
Pranesh Prakash -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ron Baione -
Seth M Reiss -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Lowenhaupt