[governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?

[parminder]

On Friday 07 December 2012 10:12 PM, McTim wrote:
> <snip>
> 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..."*/is not “US exceptionalism” but its 
> opposite."/*

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.....

  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





>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Why?  Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the
>>     ongoing evolution?
>
>     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.
>
>
>
> Isn't the ICANN community "polity" enough?
>
> 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 :
>
> */a./**/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./*
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>         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?
>>
>>
>>     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.
>
>     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.....
>
>
>
> Milton's point b) is germaine here.
>
> If you want a treaty, be careful what you ask for, you will most 
> certainly get it (and more).
>
> A treaty is by far the worst option IMHO.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121210/bd9ec079/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