Chairs/ All
First, I want to be made absolutely clear
about the objective of this exercise, and the purposes that it
will be used for. All information is good, but then I hope we do
not later 'decide' that we will now work only on the basis of
the 'clear objective information' that has been made available
to us. There is a saying in development sector 'first we begin
to measure what is important, but soon begin to consider only
that important which can and has been measured'. People often
fall into this trap, but here i think we may even be setting the
trap for ourselves.
Did we take an 'objective view' of 'actual tabulatable instances of existing or past problems' when we developed the community accountability mechanism? US jurisdiction is also an oversight mechanism, like direct NTIA role was. We never sought a list of actual problems that have already occurred vis a vis NTIA's role, in deciding to replace it. We just knew that it is not quite ok - on principle, and perhaps taking from various analogies. Exactly in the same way, application of US jurisdiction on a key global infrastructure is not ok.
As to why it is not ok, you were recently made aware of a statement made by practically all civil society organisations in India (with one seventh of world's population) involved in IG, supported by two of the largest global civil society networks in this area. The statement explained, with the brevity that a statement allows, some key issues with continued US jurisdiction over ICANN, including taking account of past/ existing events . But people here have called those views, to quote, as "fringe views". Very well! And perhaps now I have to understand that these views are not considered important becuase they do not refer to specific personal problems that any person or party have itself brought forward. They are third party views, generalisations, and so on...
I see the effort here as a part of the
larger ideology under which ICANN
unfortunately operates, which only
recognises individuals, and see social systems as being a
network of empowered individuals in contractual relationships
with each other, and being entirely responsible to stand up for
themselves. As Thatcher said, there is no society.... And so
each is to and for ones own. Neither are their any larger issues
of public interest, which do not specifically pertain to one
person or the other. Nor, is there any kind of political
representativity, whereby if you cannot come to the table, even
when expressly called, as through this proposed questionnaire,
then you are not to be considered.
This is why the views of a big organised part of public opinion, as expressed in the said civil society statement, are taken as 'fringe views' and we want to depend on personal testimonies of personal impact of individuals who have the readiness and capability to stand up for themselves and speak.
Are we really thinking that as soon as this
questionnaire goes out, to the limited channels that are already
quite engaged with this process, we will have an avalanche of
specific problems that we seek an account of. All or most of the
key cases where domain name policies or implementation have had
to grapple with jurisdictional issues are already well known.
You may at the best unearth one or two more cases, quite like
the known ones, but about even that I am doubtful.
So, basically we are setting ourselves up for not getting any or much response, which perhaps will help us 'decide' that people really are not bothered about the 'jurisdiction' issue and there arent really any problems about current jurisdictional configurations..... I find it difficult to go with exercise. But I am open to be explained the objected and expected outcome of this exercise, as being different from what I am surmising.
thanks,
parminder
These seem well-stated, except perhaps they should not be looking only for personal experience, but broaden the request to seek any experience the responder is aware of? So I suggest something like:
1. Are you aware of any instance in which anyone's business, privacy, or ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, has been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents.
2. Are you aware of any instance in which ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names?
If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
CW and I have agreed on the following draft:
Request for stakeholder input on jurisdiction issues
The Jurisdiction subgroup of the CCWG Accountability is asking for the community to provide factual input on the following questions:
1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents.
2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in?
If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents.
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
_______________________________________________
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