Erich I must correct a serious misconception here. The State does not simply "get to decide who runs its ccTLD". That is a simplistic and inaccurate view. (The State is however, a very important participant). Historically, Jon Postel decided. And the delegation was made under international private law (the same system of law that ICANN operates under). The State was not involved, either legally, or, at that time, was even interested, unless it was one of the small number of countries that applied to Jon Postel for the two letter code that matched the ISO-3166 list. In 1994, Jon Postel and several others codified existing policy (such as previous RFCs), and current considerations into the policy document that is now the basis of all ccTLD delegations. It is accepted as such by (most) ccTLDs including most ccTLDs that existed prior to 1994. In that document (RFC 1594), which has been extensively analysed and construed by a WG of the ccNSO including ICANN staff and GAC representatives, the views of "significantly interested parties" are important in delegation decisions. And since the sovereign is quite obviously a Significant Interested Party, this is explicitly noted in the FoI. Other SIPs would have to show why they are are significantly interested in delegation decisions; for the State, it's automatic that they are a SIP. Inded,there may be more than one governmental SIP in some countries' and territories' situations. IANA now fully follows RFC1594 and its agreed interpretation. For more information about the FoI, which the ICANN Board have formally adopted, please see https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/charter-foiwg-07jun11-en.pdf To read the FoI itself, see https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf I would note that any proposal that ICANN act in a way that does not comply with RFC 1994 or the construction (which as said, was arrived at with the participation of different parties, including GAC) would probably cause signficant consitituional issues for ICANN in an area that is now settled. It could be seen as one part of ICANN seeking to override the subsidiarity principle and encroach on the specific constitution of another part. On 23/08/17 07:22, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Very right, Milton.
From the site of internet users (the remit of ALAC), our goal should non-inference of international entities in ICANN’s core activities. Decisions of ICANN should be stable – after an efficient redress procedure – and not be challenged by States and Supranational Organisations anymore and also – considering ongoing thoughts in international humanitarian law – not subject to sanction regimes.
Each state can decide who runs its ccTLD, respecting rights to property, but too much insistence on sovereignty means also that it may be subject to sanctions.
As I mentioned before, immunity in international law is slowly going to be reduced to necessity (a very difficult process); thus pragmatic work on non-interference (e.g. some partial immunity) should be the goal. A general OFAC licence may be the first (and not the last) example. Other important work has to be done in courts that they accept ICANN’s special status.
Best, Erich
*Von: *Mueller, Milton L <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> *Gesendet: *Montag, 21. August 2017 15:02 *An: *Nigel Roberts <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: RES: RES: ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN
We formulate it as a collateral damage argument. The DNS root is an essential facility to the functioning of the global Internet, and it is better for people in a sanctioned country (most of whom are innocent parties) to have Internet access. Taking away Internet access harms the general public more than it harms the sanction targets.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:29 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: RES: RES: ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN
It was a genuine comment.
If you are making an application for a General Licence you will have to formulate it quite differently than "we don't like the USA foreign policy" since it is the USA that will accept or decline the application.
On 21/08/17 12:52, parminder wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2017 04:58 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm sure that formulation will go down well on the OFAC General License application form, and with Ted Cruz . . .
Nigel, I will respectfully urge you to give up your cryptic one liners, most of which we from the non english non-western world are unable to understand. Neither does the sarcasm contained therein contribute to what is a very serious exercise of global responsibility that we are trying to undertake here. Please be very clear and explicit in whatever you want to say, and try simple and plain english, with fewer idioms and situated facts rooted in western culture.....
As for what I understand from your above remark, if your suggestion is that we, of the non US world, play nice and deferential to every quirk and detail of the US nation and state, let me make it very clear that I have no such intention. I much respect the US nation and state, but then so do I respect every other country, and the democratic rights of their citizens.
parminder
On 21/08/17 12:08, parminder wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2017 04:29 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
And what will ICANN then be immune from?
Milton put it nicely, to quote, "...from the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy or other laws and policies that would circumvent ICANN's accountability to its global MS community."
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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