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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don’t think so, Ed. The last time some states tried secession it kicked off 
the Civil War.

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: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:56 AM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List; 
policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction

Paul,


- it seems as if the goal is to try again on this issue having not prevailed on 
it in WS1 which builds the accountability structures on California law.


If the subgroup lasts long enough, perhaps the issue of US jurisdiction will 
actually go away on it's own. :)

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Drive-for-California-secession-gets-bump-from-10609366.php

Ed




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight 
<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, November 12, 2016 2:29 pm
To: "policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "James M.
Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
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<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of "policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday 11 November 2016 at 13:54
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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/>

We will soon expand this effort to enlist more global support.
Best, Parminder




________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.