Milton is right, with one small caveat. *NEW* ccTLD delegations are governed by ICANN-developed policies. Or rather they would be, if we weren't still operating on pre-ICANN developed policy (for ASCII strings). Delegations before ICANN existed cannot be *governed* by anything of ICANN's in a strict sense. But the vast majority of ccTLDs abide by the existing consensus, simply becuase it's sensible. (NB: there are one or two, government or royal-controlled ones that don't accept the consensus view, but they are outliers). If a public authority wishes to formally control, or nationalise a ccTLD operator, it may, subject to the rule of law (if the country is a _rechtstaat), do so by virtue of the simple requirement (which predates ICANN) that there be an administative presence in the country concerned. The statement that the relevant government(s) is or are the ultimate authority on matters of public policy in respect of ccTLDs is, of course, simply trite law, since they are the fount of authority in ALL matters of public policy in that country.
-----Original Message-----
Take the example of disputes involving the management of ccTLDs. It should not be open to the courts of any country other than the country responsibleccTLD delegations are governed by ICANN-developed policies for a given ccTLD to adjudicate on matters relating to that ccTLD.
For the record, I don't necessarily agree with this. (via ccNSO, etc.). A California or US court could be and should be involved in determining whether ICANN broke its own rules in some kind of a decision related to cc's. Note that the US court is NOT making the policy; it is simply providing recourse if ICANN breaks its bylaws or otherwise ignores proper process.
This is what Tunis Agenda, paragraph 63, says: "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."
But this assumes that ccTLDs are subject to national sovereignty, which is a policy that has not been accepted even by GAC, much less by the rest of the ICANN community. Nor is there any international legal basis for asserting national sovereignty over cc's.
Remember that the Tunis Agenda was NOT a policy that achieved consensus amongst all stakeholder groups. It was a document drafted, negotiated and approved by states with some consultation with other groups.
Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction