<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 07 December 2012 10:12 PM,
McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxhkjqgkfzWtmZWQ-Kf8zRNwQPkX9RZVUVfH++K34Lsh6w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><snip>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Perhaps you don't read all the mails, but conveniently, MM
has just delivered a similar missive so that I don't have to
go searching for that particular mail. So I refer you to
Milton's mail that he just sent: De-nationalisation..."<b
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><i><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier
New';color:rgb(31,73,125)">is not “US exceptionalism”
but its opposite."</span></i></b></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
McTim, you must make up your mind whether you are advocating a 'free
floating ICANN' model or are backing Milton's views, who is
strongly, i repeat, strongly, against any free floating model for
ICANN.....<br>
<br>
It is a different thing that I cannot at all understand how keeping
ICANN rooted in the US legal system, as Milton advocates, can be
called de-nationalisation of ICANN by any stretch... parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxhkjqgkfzWtmZWQ-Kf8zRNwQPkX9RZVUVfH++K34Lsh6w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> No, it isnt
enough to say that the US should just terminate
the ICANN contract (including the IANA part) . One
needs to propose under what kind of arrangement
will the new internationalised ICANN get
institutionalised and subsist. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next
major step in the ongoing evolution?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Because nothing free floats without some kind of anchorage
in a polity...... But if you want to, you may describe your
vision of a free floating ICANN giving some details and we
can discuss it. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Isn't the ICANN community "polity" enough?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As for it being HQ'ed in a certain place, well if we reject
the Boat idea (or find an island that can be made free of a
nation-state and buy that) then as MM says :</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><i><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier
New';color:rgb(31,73,125)">a.<span
style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman'"> </span></span></i></b><b
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><i><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier
New';color:rgb(31,73,125)">If ICANN is incorporated as a
private entity, it will have to be in one jurisdiction.
As jurisdictions go, there is nothing intrinsically
worse about the State of California than other
jurisdictions. It may be better than many others. Yes,
this means that US jurisdiction has more influence in
some types of disputes than others. But special status
for the home jurisdiction would be true regardless of
where it is incorporated. So if Parminder or others
would like to make a case for another state or
nation-state jurisdiction, let them do so. So far, no
one has.</span></i></b></div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">One needs at
least framework level indications/ details. Would
it still be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what
kind of immunities would it have from US
jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Evolution means a series of minor changes, this
would be several steps down the road, and unless
ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a private
island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased
with new gTLD monies) there will always be a
jurisdictional issue. Of course, if ICANN became an
IGO of the UN system then your requirements might be
met, but none of us ( I think) want an
"intergovernmental only" ICANN.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
So, you are saying that your version of 'internationalised
ICANN' will remain subject to US jurisdiction. Well, as you
might suspect, that is not internationalisation in my view.
I cant see on what basis you call it internationalisation...
I would call it 'phoney internationalisation'. As I have
said often, one adverse decision by a US court on an ICANN
policy or action, and this whole phoney thing will come
unravelled. Why wait for it when we know it is around the
corner.....</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Milton's point b) is germaine here. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you want a treaty, be careful what you ask for, you will
most certainly get it (and more).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A treaty is by far the worst option IMHO. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you want it "internationalised" to the point of no
nation-state laws applying, then you have to put it in either
Antarctica, the moon, an island that can be declared
independent, or on a ship.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What you seem to want is to move it to Geneva and make it
an IGO, governed by a treaty, hence my preference for a
gradual evolution from the status-quo.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- </div>
</div>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>