On Friday 07 April 2017 09:54 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Similar provisions would apply in European countries, including checks on terrorist and criminal financing, and moneylaundering.
Nigel, Is it your understanding -- and of those others who support you here -- that international organisations with jurisdictional immunity, like a WIPO or IMF, are unduly exposed and susceptible to terrorist and criminal funding, and other possible criminalities? And that they better did something about it asap? Most of the world does not think so -- even as these organisations only operate under their laws of incorporation, and have jurisdictional immunities. Most people think that their governance is robust, and there are strong ways rooted in their internal governance to check any such possibilities. And of course such governance structures can lift immunity from any person or act and expose him/ it to normal criminal jurisdictions.... This has worked very well, and there is no danger, most people feel, for this scheme to collapse or become ineffective. Since you often bring up this point, and how ICANN would very likely go rotten if jurisdictional immunities are given, I can only interpret it in one way. That you do not trust ICANN's internal governance mechanisms, as much as people trust those of say WIPO or IMF, or even of a humble International Fertilizer and Development Centre (IFDC), which does "business" worth millions in many countries even as it has jurisdictional immunity. It is instructive to hear from a long-standing ICANNer, and currently an ICANN official, and also support for him from others, that ICANN's governance system cannot be trusted enough. (If you think I am unduly putting words in your mouth, pl make that case.) It is less trustworthy than an WIPO's, IMFs, or IFDC's governance system !! My question to you then is, if ICANN's governance system is not good enough to save itself from terrorist and criminal financing, how is it good enough to represent global public's interest in making policies for one of the most significant infrastructure of current times, and that too without any supervision? I will be obliged for a direct answer. So all this game about extensive multi stakeholder and community processes, that is touted to be so good that it can independently assess and work as per global public interest, is all humbug, a paper tiger !? By the same logic as you present now, NTIA's continued oversight would also have been a good thing.... It is certainly many times easier to inure an organisation against the kind of criminal acts that you mention than it is to ensure that it really upholds public interest, and not succumb to special and insider interests. This latter is one of the most difficult thing to attain, and sustain. If you are not confident that ICANN's governance structure can protect it against terrorist/ criminal funding (for instance, by first preventing such acts, and if they come to notice to expose them to normal criminal jurisdictional processes), what makes you confident that ICANN can independently, without supervision, uphold global public interest in a vital area? I know I am repeating the question, but it is very important. You do not seem to think that the community accountability structure that has been put in place is a good enough check against power abuse and impropriety? Of course we have not forgotten how the ICANN, its insiders, rejected stronger accountability measures -- like the membership model, and kept pushing to make the current model also as weak as possible, and make it difficult to act against the ICANN power centres... It is funny to the extreme... You think ICANN's internal governance model is weak (not even as good as of the existing many international organisations) and therefore it cannot be given jurisdictional immunity. And when we were trying to make stronger governance mechanisms, with better "outside" checks, ICANN insiders did not let us do it. AND, at the same time ICANN wants to go to the town singing praises of its unique new age governance model, and even recommend and spend huge money (a la the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative and many other attempts) to employ this "ICANN model" in all sectors of global, and possibly later, in national, level governance. And now you are saying, an ICANN without federal agents breathing down its neck, cannot even ensure that it does not get into terrorist/ criminal funding??!! I think there is a limit to which a set of ICANN insiders can make a fool of the rest of the world -- however well its machinery is organised for this purpose (relying a lot of illegal tapping of public money from uncontrolled taxing of DNS). The facade cracks, and in funny ways, whenever real questions of power come up.... It collapsed when ICANN board actually told ICANN's so called community that it is just not representative enough of the global community, which is pretty funny given that ICANN board takes its legitimacy in the first place from the same very "community". And I see it collapse now, when ICANN is asked for the simple thing of seeking jurisdictional immunity, and we hear them say, well, the fact is, we are simply not mature enough to survive without it!!! The fact is, when push comes to shove, it is always the deep power interests speaking, behind all the outside ICANN wonderland. The charade will certainly come to an end someday. Meanwhile, we need to keep pointing to the Emperor's clothes, however lonesome that public interest enterprise may sometimes get.. Nigel, thanks for showing how naked ICANN's governance model stands, although I can understand that wasnt your objective. parminder
ICANN has to follow the law of wherever it is located. I find this preferable to ICANN being immune to the consequences of its own misfeasance and/or negligence
On 07/04/17 16:07, parminder wrote:
What do you make of the following passage from
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction