[governance] JPA

[Milton L Mueller]

Michael:
I have to defer to you on the administrative law issues, obviously. If you could tell us which "several countries" are that have the strong tradition and worked out rules it would help.

My primary concern is with substantive constraints on what ICANN does and what it cannot do. E.g., I would like to have a very clear, simple statement that ICANN policies can be designed to regulate freedom of expression concerns as expressed in Article 19, and I would also like to see basic trade principles (nondiscrimination especially) somehow incorporated. Since these constraints are Internet-specific in many ways I can't see tying it to national law. They need to be globally applicable and their relevance to the specifics of Internet governance clear. 


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 
> [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] JPA
> 
> 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.  
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> -- 
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________
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