Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: US Jurisdiction over ICANN's activities that comply with GAC advice or that are otherwise based on powers or prerogatives recognised onto Governments under ICANN's multistakeholder governance model
+1 Milton's comment On Aug 22, 2017 5:47 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: Thiago If I understand what you are saying here, I have to totally reject it, and I suspect most others in this group will. What you seem to be saying here: Proposed solution: ICANN shall establish a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism, or commit to have recourse to international arbitration, for disputes relating to ICANN's activities that have been the subject of GAC advice or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as recognized under ICANN's laws. …is that GAC advice should supersede the normal ICANN bottom up multistakeholder policy development process (BUMP) and be subject to a special dispute resolution procedure that applies to ICANN and GAC alone. This is a brazen power play to redesign ICANN in a way that transforms it into an intergovernmental institution. It ain’t ever going to happen, Thiago, except perhaps in your dreams. Let me add that “independent accountability mechanisms” such as the IRP and the empowered community process already exist and no changes need to me made based on jurisdictional issues. Those mechanisms are not subject to arbitrary interference from the USG based on ICANN’s jurisdiction. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
“or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as recognized under ICANN's laws” What? ICANN does not have any laws. ICANN is subject to law. Generally in agreement with Milton that this is a radical proposal with broad and worrisome implications. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bartlett Morgan Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:38 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: US Jurisdiction over ICANN's activities that comply with GAC advice or that are otherwise based on powers or prerogatives recognised onto Governments under ICANN's multistakeholder governance model +1 Milton's comment On Aug 22, 2017 5:47 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Thiago If I understand what you are saying here, I have to totally reject it, and I suspect most others in this group will. What you seem to be saying here: Proposed solution: ICANN shall establish a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism, or commit to have recourse to international arbitration, for disputes relating to ICANN's activities that have been the subject of GAC advice or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as recognized under ICANN's laws. …is that GAC advice should supersede the normal ICANN bottom up multistakeholder policy development process (BUMP) and be subject to a special dispute resolution procedure that applies to ICANN and GAC alone. This is a brazen power play to redesign ICANN in a way that transforms it into an intergovernmental institution. It ain’t ever going to happen, Thiago, except perhaps in your dreams. Let me add that “independent accountability mechanisms” such as the IRP and the empowered community process already exist and no changes need to me made based on jurisdictional issues. Those mechanisms are not subject to arbitrary interference from the USG based on ICANN’s jurisdiction. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
The term "ICANN's laws" does rather inflate its position, what? As an asisde, I'm sure you will agree with me that ICANN does 'legislate'. That's what PDPs are for example. Indeed within the rule of law that ICANN is always subject to, ICANN has now a fairly well-developed separation of powers. Legislature: gNSO and ccNSO (the latter, by design, quite rarely) Executive: ICANN Board and staff, including Ombudman's office. Judicial: The various IRP mechanisms as and when constituted. ICANN now even has a special procedure for constituional legislation (changing ICANN's By-laws) which involves the consent of the whole Empowered Community. On 22/08/17 23:46, Phil Corwin wrote:
“or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as recognized under ICANN's laws”
What? ICANN does not have any laws. ICANN is subject to law.
Generally in agreement with Milton that this is a radical proposal with broad and worrisome implications.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bartlett Morgan *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:38 PM *To:* Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: US Jurisdiction over ICANN's activities that comply with GAC advice or that are otherwise based on powers or prerogatives recognised onto Governments under ICANN's multistakeholder governance model
+1 Milton's comment
On Aug 22, 2017 5:47 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Thiago
If I understand what you are saying here, I have to totally reject it, and I suspect most others in this group will.
What you seem to be saying here:
Proposed solution: ICANN shall establish a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism, or commit to have recourse to international arbitration, for disputes relating to ICANN's activities that have been the subject of GAC advice or are otherwise subject to Governmental authority as recognized under ICANN's laws.
…is that GAC advice should supersede the normal ICANN bottom up multistakeholder policy development process (BUMP) and be subject to a special dispute resolution procedure that applies to ICANN and GAC alone.
This is a brazen power play to redesign ICANN in a way that transforms it into an intergovernmental institution. It ain’t ever going to happen, Thiago, except perhaps in your dreams.
Let me add that “independent accountability mechanisms” such as the IRP and the empowered community process already exist and no changes need to me made based on jurisdictional issues. Those mechanisms are not subject to arbitrary interference from the USG based on ICANN’s jurisdiction.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (3)
-
Bartlett Morgan -
Nigel Roberts -
Phil Corwin