[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?

[parminder]

On Saturday 09 April 2016 11:45 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> snip
>
> >
> > Yes, of course....One of the main purposes of such a treaty would be
> to earn for ICANN immunity from host country jurisdiction. All treaty
> based international organisations have that..
> >
> SO: As attractive as this may seem and you may be surprised that I
> also wish this were possible but I think we must also face the reality
> of what it takes to get such treaties? especially the duration.
>
Seun,

Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a
business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial
jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an
insurmountable problem. We do not have a solution to that problem. And
this problem is not a peripheral one but goes to the heart of ICANN's
main public function of providing domain name services, globally,
hopefully in a fair and just way...

Now for the treaty that could rid ICANN of this problem, you have come
back to a very weak argument... time needed to do such a treaty... First
of all, I have been hearing this argument for more than a decade now,
enough time to write a treaty many times over. Second, it is just for
the US to agree and such a treaty would take less time than what the
IANA oversight process is taking. I dont think we can keep repeating
this specious argument - treaties take too much time, over and over
again, when a key global governance issue faces us. Hundreds of global
governance problems get addressed bec some people first decide that yes
a treaty is in order, like the recent climate change one... Where would
the world be if everyone just kept saying well treaties take too long...
And after all, if we agree that a treaty is the right thing (do you?)
then let it take the time it takes, meanwhile you still have the status
quo system working in the interim. So, lets discuss what is right and
what wrong, not the time a solution would take (which, as I said, is not
going to be a lot)

> ICANN serves the global community, so what will the implications be
> for the countries that does not sign the treaties?
>
Same way as ICANN serves all countries now, even when they do not form
or participate in the US jurisdiction... This is no problem at all...
First of all, I dont see why a country wont sign, but even if it did
not, it still gets full services (with the option of signing the treaty
open).

> how does ICANN maintain its current multistakeholder nature if founded
> on such treaties?.
>

Unlike what many think, and Roberto Gaetano has argued, a treaty does
not necessarily mean inter-gov mechanism for a body's functioning, I am
asking for a treaty that simply establishes international law that
allows ICANN to stay and function exactly as it does at present.... At
present it does so under US law - which mind it, is not multilateral,
but state based, of a single state - after the treaty it will function
on the same ms way under the established international law.... what is
the difference, other than trusting a single state, the US, in the
extant situation, more than all states put together (and able to act
only by consensus), in the proposed new one... I by far trust the later
more.

> I think this is just a matter of priorities; we should weigh which is
> more important than the other and I think preservation of the
> multistakeholder nature of ICANN, it's openness and it's structure is
> of importance
>

that remains protected, in my proposal through an international legal
guarantee, rather than a US state based, as currently....

> than the threat of jurisdiction which doesn't happen often (and only
> affects a scenario when it happens).
>

This is weak.... you are saying it does not matter if ICANN's governance
is not fair and just to the extent that, say, an Indian generic drug
company avoids taking a gTLD that it otherwise wants to and should have
a right to.... What good than ICANN is, what good is its elaborate gov
mechanism when it fails in this primary function...

parminder

> Regards
> > parminder
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> > parminder
> >> >
> >> >> This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this
> statement will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the
> reasoning is as flawed as the statement.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Alejandro Pisanty
> >> >>
> >> >> <message tail snipped>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > At-Large mailing list
> >> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >> >
> >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160409/6c3115e6/attachment.html>