On 20/08/17 04:09, parminder wrote:
. And don't you think it would then make ICANN /less /accountable? Maybe less accountable to US public, but more accountable to the global
Well, our organisation is not a part of the US public, but the global. Nonetheless we strongly think that immunity would make ICANN less accountable to the global public interest. So we fundamentally disagree. Any form of immunity would once again mean ICANN Board and/or staff would return to the approach of the early 2000s when (to use a phrase in common use among a number of my colleagues in the ccTLD world) "they do whatever they like". And I have personal knowledge of such things: one company I was involved in the very early days of the Internet was directly and most seriously affected (the company no longer exists, pretty much as a result) by ICANN acting (we would have said) without any proper legal basis in US law. They were, in fact, at the behest of a **non**US (or "foreign") governmental entity. At that time ICANN was partially "protected" by being, in effect a state actor (i.e. ICANN merely "recommended" certain actions to another party, who then acted under US Government contract). The affected party was a start-up with limited resources to bring suit anyway, irrespective of the Governmental connextion and the company consequently had to close down. Personally I welcome the change to ICANN becoming a purely private body (something I've been working for since 1999), and would oppose any proposals or suggestion to immunise it. But you fail to take this reasoned, and reasonable, view into account when you repeat your clamour for ICANN to be given one or more "get- out-of-gaol-free cards". On 20/08/17 04:09, parminder wrote:
. And don't you think it would then make ICANN /less /accountable? Maybe less accountable to US public, but more accountable to the global