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

[Riaz K Tayob]

Comments below.


On 2012/08/30 11:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:21 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> I will cut out both the chaff and the detail, sticking to the main 
>> issue we are discussing here.
>
> Actually, I was attempting to understand the rationale someone might 
> use to assert ICANN is not subject to US law since you stated ICANN 
> apologists did this, but I get that you don't want to talk about your 
> earlier statement.
>
>> This to me is a convincing case that we should develop and propose a 
>> clear alternative for CIR management that is not dependent on the 
>> laws and executive authority of one country.
>
> I suspect many, if not all, of the folks you deride as "status 
> quoists" would simply respond with "great idea, now where's that 
> proposal for a clear alternative again?"

Are we still here? For me it means it is 1) performative (i.e. action in 
the making), 2) evolutionary (unless there is a crisis of "vision")
>
>> Basically, in the circumstances, the only option is to base ICANN on 
>> international law, with a host country agreement and immunities for 
>> its functions vis a vis its physical location.
>
> As this is not my area of expertise, can you point to a similar case 
> where a private organization has been based on international law and 
> granted immunities? I'm curious as to how such organizations 
> originated and evolved.

WIPO, as stated previously.

>
>> And the only way to make international law is for all countries to 
>> get together and make it, while it being a fully open and 
>> participative process for everyone else.
>
> I thought most (all?) international law was the result of treaties 
> between governments which may or may not be the result of "a fully 
> open and participative process for everyone else".  In fact, my 
> impression has been that most international law was sort of the 
> opposite of "fully open and participative".

You are correct. In fact, much of multilateralism faces hegemonic bias 
of the "opposite of the third world" (i.e. the developed 
countries/EU+US+collaborators et al). Nowadays it is less so, but still 
very much the same. The faith that developing countries have in 
collective solutions shows a commitment to legitimacy/cooperation that 
rich countries rhetoric belies.

>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120831/0757bb78/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