Issue 2, Non interference of States in ccTLDs of other States
Dear Greg, Dear Bernard Since yesterday ,I tried several times to post my issues in the Spreadsheet but I have not succeeded. Pls kindly include this issue as my Issue 2 in that Sheet as follows: *Non-interference of States in ccTLDs of other States * Resolution 102 of ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 Busan relating to International public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses Which was unanimously adopted by all Governments attending that conference including the United States of America in its recognizing further stipulates Quote *“recognizing further* *h) that Member States represent the interests of the population of the country or territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;* *i) that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's ccTLD,” * Unquote The Resolution also in its resolve stipulates that Quote * “resolves * * 2 that the sovereign and legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected and ensured, upheld and addressed via flexible and improved frameworks and mechanisms;”* Unquote In view of the above no state should interfere with ccTLDs of other states . *Proposed solution:* ICANN should seek jurisdictional immunities in respect of ICANN's activities relating to the management of ccTLDs. Moreover, it should be included in ICANN Bylaws an exclusive 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. Such exclusive clause shall be included in the contracts ICANN negotiate with ccTLD managers, where such a contract exists. Regards Kavouss
Niue fully agrees, Kavouss! To be honest, the question of national jurisdictional sovereignty regarding choice of ccTLD management is a core issue that for a very long time has been "the elephant in the room". The subject was avoided in during my presence in CCWG WS1 and moved to CCWG WS2. There are of course a few in the ccNSO who wishes to kill all discussions on the topic, there are also some who regards it as an ideological question. Representing Niue, I represent one of the worst cases where a small nation can not even afford risking a long drawn legal court battle due to the continuously vague formulations in the ccTLD framework. A nation that does not even have the economical means for a re-delegation request due to current uncertainty. The difficulties, uncertainty and rationale surrounding the issue is very, very hard to explain to anyone outside ICANN (including Government Officials of many Countries). To put it simple: Would the US or any other larger nation accept a hostile entity have total control over it´s ccTLD? I believe not. Best Regards, Pär Brumark, GAC Representative, Niue On 2017-08-22 13:14, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear Bernard Since yesterday ,I tried several times to post my issues in the Spreadsheet but I have not succeeded. Pls kindly include this issue as my Issue 2 in that Sheet as follows: *Non-interference of States in ccTLDs of other States *
Resolution 102 of ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 Busan relating to International public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses
Which was unanimously adopted by all Governments attending that conference including the United States of America in its recognizing further stipulates
Quote
/“recognizing further/
/h)that Member States represent the interests of the population of the country or territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;/
/i)that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's ccTLD,” /
Unquote
The Resolution also in its resolve stipulates that
Quote
/“resolves /
/2that the sovereign and legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected and ensured, upheld and addressed via flexible and improved frameworks and mechanisms;”/
Unquote//
In view of the above no state should interfere with ccTLDs of other states .
*Proposed solution:*
ICANN should seek jurisdictional immunities in respect of ICANN's activities relating to the management of ccTLDs. Moreover, it should be included in ICANN Bylaws an exclusive 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. Such exclusive clause shall be included in the contracts ICANN negotiate with ccTLD managers, where such a contract exists.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Bernard Dear Greg Pls kindly confirm by return that my two issues sent to you by e/mails Are already contained in the list is issues submitted Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 13:14, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear Bernard Since yesterday ,I tried several times to post my issues in the Spreadsheet but I have not succeeded. Pls kindly include this issue as my Issue 2 in that Sheet as follows: Non-interference of States in ccTLDs of other States Resolution 102 of ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 Busan relating to International public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses Which was unanimously adopted by all Governments attending that conference including the United States of America in its recognizing further stipulates Quote “recognizing further h) that Member States represent the interests of the population of the country or territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated; i) that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's ccTLD,” Unquote The Resolution also in its resolve stipulates that Quote “resolves 2 that the sovereign and legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected and ensured, upheld and addressed via flexible and improved frameworks and mechanisms;”
Unquote In view of the above no state should interfere with ccTLDs of other states . Proposed solution: ICANN should seek jurisdictional immunities in respect of ICANN's activities relating to the management of ccTLDs. Moreover, it should be included in ICANN Bylaws an exclusive 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. Such exclusive clause shall be included in the contracts ICANN negotiate with ccTLD managers, where such a contract exists. Regards Kavouss
participants (3)
-
Arasteh -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Pär Brumark