Nigel,
if the issue was, as you claim, matters were settled and solved
since long, we would not have this discussion and examples like
Niue´s ccTLD .nu would not remain unsolved.
Or?
I would rather say that the matter was buried. Perhaps momentary
wisely, in order to avoid some conflicts at the time.
But burying this fundamental issue has lead to inconsistency, long drawn interpretations of the RFC1591 like the FOI that has to be interpitaded in itself by the FOIWG e t c e t c.
It is not about destroying the multi stakeholder model as you claim to fear (with almost apocalyptic scaremongering). I would rather say the opposite - clarifying changes could rather improve the multi-stakeholder model framework and ICANN´s legitimacy.
The world has changed and ICANN has matured and enlarged since
the early days when the RFC1591 was the fundament for everything.
What you seem to imply is that the only and perfect solution has
somehow been found.
Niue can hardly agree with you.
Now, I do not want to harm my message in this answer by using to many references and quotes about how settled the jurisdiction issues NOT are, but the latest attempt to start sorting things out was the very time consuming ccNSO work with The FOI/FOIWG finished in 2015.
The following statement is the GAC´s standpoint regarding the full FOI/FOIWG is from ICANN52, Singapore, 2015.
From the GAC Communiqe, Singapore, 2015:
---
"4. Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) Report
The GAC notes the work of the ccNSO FOIWG, and its efforts to provide interpretive clarity to RFC1591. The GAC welcomes the FOIWG’s recognition that, consistent with the GAC’s 2005 Principles, the ultimate authority on public policy issues relating to ccTLDs is the relevant government. As such, nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government.".
---
Best Regards,
Pär
Kavouss, Thiago, all
As is clear from the ratio in the Weinstein case, it has not been ruled that the US courts will exercise /in rem/ jurisdiction over ccTLDs. (the question is open -- in rem certainly applies to second level gtld domains, and ccTLD domains registered with a US registrar).
What IS clear, from history, is that ICANN has, in the past, acted in a way that in my country would be defined as 'blackmail'.
Viz: refusing to make IANA changes unless and until a particular country agreed to sign a contract on ICANN's terms over its ccTLD.
Others related to that specific ccTLD can confirm their recollection and may do so.
Whilst you appear to be agreeing with me on the point of subsidiarity, it is clear to me that providing ICANN-PTI with blankey immunity from all actions it could take, would allow it to return to that behaviour, with impunity.
So in fact, ccTLDs would LOSE the subsidiarity they currently enjoy.
I fully understand the concerns regarding OFAC etc. But that's a reason for ICANN to work with the General Licencing regime to mollify those concerned. It's not a reason to give IANA the freedom to do whatever it likes without the Rule of Law applying.
There is no intrinsic problem that needs solving with the ccTLD system.
That system has has been carefully and cooperatively reviewed by ICANN staff, cctLD managers and GAC members over a 7 years period resulting the policy framework we have know.
One concern IS certainly the potential effects of OFAC.
This does need to be explored further and the consideration of the meaning "prohibited transaction" (I don't think ICANN carries out any) and if it does, the obtaining of a general licence.
But this is no reason to tear up the policy work we've done in the ccTLD community over, literally decades, to arrive at the workable system we have today, over the disaster that was ICANN in 2001-2.
And isn't this WG about jurisdiction, anyway?
On 22/08/17 11:50, CISAS wrote:
> Dear Mr Roberts,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
>
>
> Please be advised that email addresses that are not commonly sent to
> CISAS can be interpreted as spam by our server and as such will not be
> allowed through to the inbox. You original email was un-junked and as
> such we should experience no further problems receiving your emails.
>
>
>
> I am sorry that any information you received from Bintu was incorrect
> and that you felt my answers were evasive. I have sent you the CEDR
> Complaints Procedure previously which you will need to use in order to
> make a complaint about the CISAS service.
>
>
>
> I can confirm that Numbergroup Network Communications (Ireland) Limited
> is a member of CISAS. This company also goes by the name of Numbergroup
> Network Limited. We can therefore take on complaints about a company
> with either of the aforementioned names.
>
>
>
> There is no record of a companies named ‘Numbergrp Network
> Communications Ltd’ or ‘Numbergrp Ltd’ being a member of CISAS. I
> suggest that you contact Ofcom in order to obtain further information
> regarding these companies.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Holly Quinn
> CISAS Team Leader
>
>
>
>
As you must know (from the Weinstein case)
On 22/08/17 12:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All_______________________________________________
I have noted some immediate rush and reaction to the proposal made by Thiago
He raised an important issue which I have also taken with reference to a
Resolution adopted by Plenipotentiary Conference of ITU Busan to which
the United States of America which hosting ICANN venue and ICANN
applicable law regarding non interference of any State in the ccTLD of
other States.
This has nothing to do with the development of PDP in process as it may
takes years to finalize during which the ccTLD of other states would be
detrimentally impacted.
We have established WS2 and its sub grouop dealing with jurisdiction
which is quite eligible to address the issue .We need to understand each
other ^s problems and not make back and fort the issues which is of
fundamental and crucial importance.
Please also see my issue 2
Regards
Kavouss
having read our immediate reaction but
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net
<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:s
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-review-2017-05-24-en
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccnso-pdp-retirement-review-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>
<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br
<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>>
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
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
--
Jordan Carter | Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction