<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/09/09 11:41 PM, Lee W McKnight
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B135E25@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><span style="background-color: white;">ICANN, on the
other hand, if established under international public or private
law, could indeed gain various immunities, which its actions do
not now enjoy. Milton's 100% right to say careful what we wish
for here, since moving to a treaty or international convention
as the source of ICANN's legal status, could just as easily make
ICANN less responsive as more responsive to national
jurisdictions, and individuals. ANY national jurisdiction. But
that is a possibility and not a certainty, as it would depend on
the specifics agreed to by nations signing onto that
hypothetical treaty.<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
Of course there is an indeterminacy in these arrangements. Question
is, is it legitimate (albeit effective)?<br>
<br>
ICANN enjoys the discretion of complying or not. At national levels
court's may refuse to even hear a case over which it will render an
"empty judgement" - hence issues of jurisdiction and effective
enforcement would play up here to even ensure legal standing. So the
sufficiency of the argument on national (other than US) control is
much more complicated than at first sight.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B135E25@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><span style="background-color: white;">
<br>
If you don't believe me, just ask any practicing international
(private) lawyer. I'm guessing her answer would be another
question: how deep are your pockets? : ) But anyone with enough
money to make the challenge to for example - any - gtld string,
can follow ICANN procedures, or they can turn to their own
national courts. Although those courts might find it annoying if
they are dragged into the middle of an arcane dispute if
remedies from within the ICANN system were not exhausted first.<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
Question, would I be wrong to read this as a veiled
anti-multilateralism position? I ask because if it is then it is
merely a variation of the US exceptionalism view. If it is not then
there are transformative reform possibilities - and these need to
address the non-binding nature of the IGF (and the posse of
marginalisation that typically - hope this is not too strong a term
- actively marginalises this issue) as well as other paths to change
(different roots, non-governmental control flowering autonomous
control, enhanced cooperation, etc). <br>
<br>
These are matters of refined judgement. Based on what line one takes
- reformist reform (accomodation - based largely on the ICANN - or
USG - won't/can't change view), tranformative reform (as claimed by
Pisanty et al) and radical reform (as claimed by Parminder)
[categorisation based on my reading <u>only</u>] and here we may
well have a fork in the road. Aside from the contest of ideas, on a
practical level, the issue is there sufficient representation of
these diverse views, are they cultivated and nurtured or are some
more equal than others. <br>
<br>
<span style="background-color: white;"> [Where we may differ of
course is on first principles, i.e. is legitimacy a valid grounds
upon which to make a claim - and while not explicit, these
reformist reform positions put this to question (which is the fork
in the road where company does part)....</span><br>
</body>
</html>