Re: [council] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>]

Paul, 

I'm a very distant observer in CCWG-Acct list but I still believe there is 
latitude that WS1 allowed for WS2-Jurisdiction for discussing the jurisdiction 
of ICANN contractual framework like the RAs and RAAs, even though not the 
jurisdiction of ICANN itself, or PTI for that matter. And that is a 
jurisdiction question that is keen to all GNSO groups: contracted parties would 
like to have clearer jurisdiction definitions in their contracts, while others 
would like to see more privacy-savvy jurisdictions in there so there is more 
data protection to registrants, while others might prefer as they are, based on 
a jurisdiction that is not much privacy-oriented, so they have more access to 
registration data... 

.. as for reopening ICANN's own jurisdiction, I have a peace pipe solution 
which is to change ICANN's jurisdiction to the one where the last ICANN meeting 
occurred, so every 4 months we have a new one and nobody gets jealous of it 
because it will it not endure. Can we now move to the the contractual framework 
jurisdiction discussion ? ;-)


Rubens






> On Nov 11, 2016, at 11:54 AM, policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> 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