[cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

Interesting this discussion has delved into ICANN world, so will add a few
comments. Kindly see inline

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 27 Dec 2016 07:43, "Julius ter Pelkwijk" <pelkwijk at gmail.com> wrote:


The question is: if icann ever gets sued, will it be done in an
international court or an american court? I usually find these things a big
legal minefield that i tend to avoid as someone who is unknown with
international politics and legal structures.

SO: I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, anyone can file a suit in any
country against ICANN but the extent that suit goes then depends on how
binding ICANN is to law of the land where the suit is filled. I don't see
why ICANN will be tried by international courts, as it's a California
incorporated organisation though I recognise that there may be certain
paper work that ICANN may have done in establishment of its regional hubs
which could make ICANN bound "to some extent" to law of those countries as
well. However I think the ultimate would not just be American court but
rather a California court.

Also, diversity of the different stakeholders is something that should be
carefully looked at, to prevent issues later.

SO: ICANN is currently going through review of its accountability
mechanisms (within the WS2) and there is a dedicated group looking at
diversity issues[1]. I encourage you to have a look and perhaps contribute
to that work as well.

Regards
1. https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=%23page%2F59643278

Julius

Op di 27 dec. 2016 00:17 schreef Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

>
>
> > On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Patrik,
> >
> > What it means to you may be reasonable.
>
> I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself.
>
> > Indeed the US may have agreed with you.
>
> Maybe.
>
> > But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is
> perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have
> already agreed at treaty level.
> >
> > In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it
> was.
> >
> > Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of
> DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it
> would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had
> not been with State.)
> >
> > I sometimes wonder though what happens now.
> >
> > Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits?
> Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some
> time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise!
>
> What happens with these questions is that international politics and
> interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be
> used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but
> that's life.
>
> > In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust
> suit?
> >
> > Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply
> because the US government is no longer involved?
>
> I guess so.
>
> > ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit
> incorporated in California.
>
> Do ICANN, or is that only what people think?
>
> > In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And
> obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law!
>
> Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally.
>
> Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU.
>
>    Patrik
>
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
> >>
> >>> As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an
> euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general
> and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
> >>>
> >>> However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding
> its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to
> encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies
> and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
> >>>
> >>> But others might have different recollections.
> >>
> >> As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used
> for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions.
> This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other
> States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to
> non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar.
> >>
> >> I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive.
> >>
> >>  Patrik
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20161227/ced9c289/attachment.html>