[governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs

Tue Aug 21 05:07:15 EDT 2012

 I hear you Parminder. I recognise that the WGIG 2005 document also
recognise the perceived unilateral control that the US has over ICANN and
its operation. The US House of Representatives recently passed a resolution
calling for an open and free internet and one which is multistakeholder by
nature. On one view, perhaps this presents an opportunity to see this
manifest in greater levels even within current structures.

I believe that ICANN has done alot for the community in that it is possibly
the first experiment in designing a multistakeholder policy making body. I
had mentioned in an entirely different thread that at the end of the days
philosophy drives policy, laws and architecture. With something as global
as the Internet and with people who hold diverse philosophical foundations,
it is critical that  all stakeholders come to some *common understanding on
values*. This is why Mawaki's comments are very critical in the governance
aspect.

Without a doubt the USG also has to re-look and re-examine some of its
processes to gain some trust and goodwill.  This is why the 9/10 of the
iceberg is critical.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Sala,
>
> You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's decision.... I have
> no view on this particular decision of ICANN to have a .xxx gtld. I am
> speaking about applicability of the jurisdiction of US courts on all ICANN
> decisions. And since US courts apply US law, it is the applicability of US
> laws over all ICANN decisions, which is also called 'oversight'. And I dont
> like anything that calls itself a global system/ infrastructure to be
> subject to laws that I do not have an opportunity to participate in making.
> Simple democratic principle. No legislation without representation.......
>
> The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is quite beside the
> point.... But then if you have to pursue that line, US has some of the
> worst IP laws, but still when an IP issue vis a vis any ICANN decision
> comes up for judicial review, it will still be the same US courts and US
> law, and not Brazilian courts and law.....
>
> Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified.... parminder
>
>
>  On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> My personal views are if anything I would say that the situation proves
> that the system works. It means that decisions can be subject to scrutiny.
> Having personally seen voluntary scrutiny take place within ICANN and now
> seeing decisions being checked by the legal system it shows that the
> organisation is answerable.
>
>  If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of antitrust laws
> in the world and standards for corporate governance rate as among the
> highest if not the highest. This should inspire confidence that decisions
> can be checked. For ICANN it means an internal self evaluation and ongoing
> assessment to ensure that they perform their obligations to the highest
> standards.
>
>  Organisations all over the world, governments included continue to
> learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You pick up and learn and move
> on. It does not mean that all your actions are going to be flawless - show
> me one perfect organisation and I will show you Utopia. Of course that does
> not mean that we do not strive for excellent
>  standards.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing
>> the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US
>> establishment.
>>
>> A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN
>> decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this
>> decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN
>> do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be
>> asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding
>> .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response
>> in that case?
>>
>> Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US
>> courts.
>>
>> ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global
>> organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any
>> case had feet of clay....
>>
>> And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a
>> major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news
>> and the paradox it poses.
>>
>> It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of
>> course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US
>> courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its
>> decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning
>> of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial
>> review which is a part of overall oversight.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>   On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote:
>>
>> Salanieta
>>
>> Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a
>> new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from
>> "new gTLDs".
>>
>> Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the
>> allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the
>> particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM
>> Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748
>>>
>>> http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
>  Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120821/0e48dcb3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t