<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
Paul et al
What is driving this?
Most of the discussions / arguments I’ve seen about jurisdiction stem from
something specific, either a domain name or a website being taken offline or
similar. ICANN’s jurisdiction in such cases is irrelevant, as if it’s done by
court order it’s being enacted by either the registrar or the registry.
Other arguments and discussions seem to stem from a misunderstanding of how
ICANN, registries, registrars and other parts of the ecosystem interact.
The statement seems to be conflating a lot of unrelated things and is really
confusing, though I’m still a bit jetlagged, so I may have misunderstood some
of it.
Maybe I’m missing something?
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blacknight.blog/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday 11 November 2016 at 13:54
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
Thanks James. Great seeing you and everyone else this past week.
Just an FYI for those not participating in WS2-Jurisdiction, this ICANNxit idea
has been pushed very hard by Parminder and others on the list. As we all know,
the accountability reforms of WS1 are all predicated on California law, so this
idea seems outside of the scope of WS2 since WS2 wasn't meant to dismantle WS1.
Further complicating things, there is now a crowd in WS2-Jurisdiction pushing
for the idea that ICANN should be "immune" from the courts; essentially the
opposite of accountability.
Now for the commentary: I hope that if either of these bad ideas make their
way into the final reports (however unlikely that such would occur), that the
GNSO at least would stand in the way of adoption -- even if such a stand were
against the tide of ICANN orthodoxy prevalent at the moment of voting.
Best,
Paul
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, November 09, 2016 3:08 am
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Council colleagues –
See below for a statement published on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list.
Thank you,
J.
From:
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxx>>
on behalf of parminder
<parminder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:parminder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:31
To: CCWG Accountability
<accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:parminder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BestBitsList <bestbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:bestbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org
<forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|