Dear Parminder, Thank you very much for this contribution. I believe it raises important points about the debate around jurisdiction and should therefore be taken to the discussions in the WS2 subgroup. Contrary to what has been stated by other colleagues, I believe the paper you forwarded brings in new and interesting ideas that are worth evaluating, although I would have concerns with some of them. Anyway, my understanding is that we are currently in a problem assessment phase, where no possible recommendations/alternatives should be discarded beforehand. Regards, Pedro Enviado do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensagem original -------- De: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Data: 13/11/16 17:59 (GMT-03:00) Para: policy@paulmcgrady.com, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction While I don’t support the statement as a whole, I think your dismissal is too indiscriminate. I, too, would completely reject Parminder’s discredited argument that setting rules for a TLD named “pharmacy” will result in the global imposition of rules for the entire pharmaceutical sector (or book, or beauty parlors, etc.). This absurdly exaggerates the influence of TLD registries. Even if it were not based on a false assumption, the idea that because ICANN is incorporated in the US the rules its policy processes and registry operators adopt for these TLDs are somehow controlled by the US government is simply false. I also think that option #1 (incorporating ICANN under international law instead of California) was soundly rejected in WS1 and in fact is not a feasible or even coherently formulated option. Option #2, on the other hand, has some merit and certain aspects of it are worth considering. I see no fallacy in the statement, “With three different jurisdictions over these complementary functions, the possibility of any single one being … able to interfere in ICANN's global governance role will be minimized.” I think this could be considered a prudent political risk mitigation strategy. We are not going to change ICANN’s place of incorporation, and it is unlikely that we will change PTI’s place of incorporation so soon after we have stood up the new corporation. But it is not impractical to consider jurisdictional diversity the next time the RZM contract is renewed. (Note that I am characterizing an alternate jurisdiction as a ‘consideration’ and not as a ‘requirement.’ And longer term, as PTI matures they might also take into consideration the possibility of another jurisdiction. The value of this is debatable, given that PTI is a subsidiary of ICANN, but the possibility of separation was deliberately built into the design of the new arrangements. So in any separation process, jurisdictional diversity might be taken into account. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of policy@paulmcgrady.com Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 9:14 AM To: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction Thanks Parminder. The attachment you shared seems to be a compilation of some of the really terrible ideas which have shown up on this List from time to time. Since these terrible ideas have already been addressed and addressed and addressed on this List, I'm not sure that re-addressing them again at this time would prove useful. However, I didn't want anyone to think that silence (to the latest round of trying to push for the unraveling of WS1) was somehow assent. It isn't. We just really have to get on with the real work of this group and stop constantly reopening and re-addressing all of these fringe ideas. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction From: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> Date: Tue, November 08, 2016 7:01 pm To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All I thought this may be relevant to those on this list. Regard, parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN's US jurisdiction Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:23:40 +0530 From: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net> To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org> <governance@lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, BestBitsList <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>, Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org <forum@justnetcoalition.org><mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org> All As you know, the issue of jurisdiction of ICANN is under consideration at ICANN's community process (in the accountability track where there is a sub group discussing this issue). ICANN is currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, from 3rd to 9th November. Today, on the last day of ICANN's Hyderabad meeting, the enclosed statement was issued by key Indian civil society organisations engaged with Internet governance issues, supported by two key global networks involved in this area. The statement expresses the urgent need for transiting ICANN from being under the jurisdiction of one country, presenting the rationale of why this is important to do. It also lists some possible options of doing so, towards beginning a serious action-oriented deliberation on this very important matter. Unlike what is often understood, the jurisdiction issue is not just a matter of sovereign prestige and self respect of the states but concerns vital matters impacting people's rights. This is especially so as the society gets more and more digitised in all areas. We welcome comments and feedback. The statement has been issued by the following Indian civil society organisations. Centre for Internet and Society<http://cis-india.org/>, Bangalore IT for Change<http://www.itforchange.net/>, Bangalore Free Software Movement of India<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Movement_of_India>, Hyderabad Society for Knowledge Commons<http://www.knowledgecommons.in/>, New Delhi Digital Empowerment Foundation<http://defindia.org/>, New Delhi Delhi Science Forum<http://www.delhiscienceforum.net/>, New Delhi Software Freedom Law Center India, New Delhi Third World Network - India<https://twnetwork.org/>, New Delhi It is supported by the following global networks: Association For Progressive Communications<https://www.apc.org/> Just Net Coalition <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>We will soon expand this effort to enlist more global support. Best, Parminder <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community