[governance] JPA

[Jeanette Hofmann]

You are not the only one who suggests administrative law as a frame of 
reference. I understand the pragmatic reasons you mention. Yet, such a 
model would privilege the legal and political tradition of one country 
over all others and it would not really address the criticism of 
unilateral control in Internet governance.
jeanette

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> No, it is not that difficult to craft a system to allow non-citizens to 
> have an equal right of action.  But this does mean the non-citizen must 
> go into the courts of that nation, which has linguistic, geographic and 
> financial implications.  I submit that is still better than reinventing 
> the wheel, with all the uncertainty (and expense) that implies.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 27 May 2009, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>> Hi Michael, this sounds nice but how do we translate national due 
>> process to transnatinal policy making? You are not suggesting to 
>> restrict the rights to appeal or to contest an action to the citizens 
>> of the country that hosts ICANN, are you?
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>>>  This is why tying to a nation's law (as opposed to 'international 
>>> law') of
>>>  administrative makes sense: it's at the national level that we have 
>>> well
>>>  worked-out ideas of due process and basic rights to be heard.
>>>
>>>  International law, which is still primarily about states and 
>>> international
>>>  organizations, does not have a body of jurisprudence that speaks to 
>>> those
>>>  issues.
>>>
>>>  The US APA is one model; Canada has a different on.  The UK's model of
>>>  administrative review, on the other hand, is relatively feeble.
>>>
>>>  Several countries have a strong tradition, and well worked-out rules,
>>>  about procedural regularity, that is rules which police fairness,
>>>  conflicts of interest, the right to be heard, without being too
>>>  heavy-handed in their substantive review.  Those are good models, they
>>>  took decades to develop, and one should be adopted rather than 
>>> reinvented
>>>  from the ground up.
>>>
>>>  On Wed, 27 May 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>
>>> > >  I also think that suggesting an 'international judidical body'  
>>> for > >  adjudication CIR/ related IG issues as a more urgent step  
>>> would be > >  useful, since a full treaty process could take long  
>>> time. The model > >  and legal basis for such a judicial or quasi- 
>>> judicial body can be > >  discussed. , > >  Same issue as my last 
>>> message.
>>> >  What rules/law does this quasi-judicial body apply? Without that, 
>>> it's >  useless second-guess or a
>>> >  dangerous political bypass mechanism.
>>> >  We've tried to skip that stage for 10- years and it hasn't worked. 
>>> Let's >  get down to it. > > >
>>>
>>
>>
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance