I fully support Jordan's intervention here.
Neither this group nor the ICANN Board can legislate for ccTLDs - the strong respecting of the principle of subsidiarity by ICANN is fundamental to the relationship tween the ccTLD community and ICANN, enabling the 2003 Montreal Agreement which rescued the multistakeholder model, reversing the previous year's formal rejection and abandonment of the ICANN system by ccTLDs.
On 22/08/17 10:58, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear Thiago, dear all,
Dispute resolution regarding ccTLD matters is currently the subject of a
PDP in the ccNSO.
This isn't the perfect link but does give some info:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccnso-pdp-retirement-r eview-2017-05-24-en
While the existence of the PDP does not prevent this sub-group of the
CCWG discussing this matter, my understanding of ICANN's bylaws is that
the Board would not be able to accept any WS2 recommendation on this
subject. That is a hard won protection of our ccTLD independence that
has been a feature of the ICANN system since the ccNSO was formed.
As such, the Jurisdiction group may prefer to focus its effort and
energy on matters where implementable recommendations can be made by the
CCWG.
Hope this helps,
Jordan
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 at 1:32 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
<thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br >>Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann
wrote:
Dear All,
For your consideration:
Issue 3: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Description: US courts have in rem jurisdiction over domain names as
a result of ICANN's place of incorporation, and US courts and US
enforcement agencies could possibly exercise its exclusive
enforcement jurisdiction over ICANN to compel it to re-delegate
ccTLDs. This is contrary, in particular, to paragraph 63 of the
Tunis Agenda: "Countries should not be involved in decisions
regarding another country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD).
Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each
country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their
ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible
and improved framework and mechanisms." It is to be noted that while
paragraph 63 may not state that States have sovereignty over ccTLDs,
it does establish that States should not interfere with ccTLDs.
Further, an obligation on States not to interfere with certain
matters, as ccTLDs, need not be based on the principle of
sovereignty to exist, nor does it suppose that the matter is one
subject to the sovereignty of States. For States can simply agree to
limit their ability to interfere with ccTLDs delegated to other
countries, and this is the principle embodied in Paragraph 63 of the
Tunis Agenda.
Proposed solution: ICANN should seek jurisdictional immunities in
respect of ICANN's activities relating to the management of ccTLDs.
In addition, it should be included in ICANN Bylaws an exclusive
choice of forum provision, whereby disputes relating to the
management of any given ccTLD by ICANN shall be settled exclusively
in the courts of the country to which the ccTLD in question refer. A
similar exclusive choice of forum clause shall be included in those
contracts ICANN may have with ccTLD managers, where such a contract
exists.
Best regards,
Thiago
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list.org >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--
Jordan Carter | Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction