[governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns

[Milton L Mueller]

That's very useful, John. Thanks. It confirms my hunch, which is that the basic purpose of a host country agreement is to protect the IO and its staff from application of national law. 
And you add the important point that in order to protect the people from abuse by the IO, there needs to be an international treaty agreement specifying the rights and limitations of the IO in question. 

With respect to standing in California courts, I believe (but IANACLB** and thus am not sure) that membership rights could be asserted by anyone who was a member of the organization in question, regardless of whether they were a US citizen.

** IANACLB = I am not a California lawyer, baby. (But I do have a tan like one - It's been sunny here)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Mathiason [mailto:jrm at intlmgt.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:06 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped,
> U.S. warns
> 
> Milton,
> 
> A host country agreement for an international organization covered by the
> Convention on Privileges and Immunities of international officials  is designed
> to ensure that the provisions of that convention are applied (and it only
> applies use immunity to international officials), as well as other agreements
> that are included (e.g. how national taxes are assessed).  These are now
> fairly standard and are designed to protect the international organization
> from undue influence (or interference) from the country in which the
> organization is located.  If ICANN were an international organization, it would
> be more independent than it now is (and would not be subject to US
> antitrust law).  So far, no one seems to have tried to sue ICANN in California
> courts, and I wonder if any non-US people would have standing to do so
> (someone with a US legal background should help here).  Of course,
> international organizations cannot be sued in national courts.
> 
> The rights and benefits for Netizens would have to be set out in whatever
> international agreement was adopted to make ICANN an international
> organization.  Once set out, ICANN would be required to ensure these rights.
> 
> Hope this is a useful addition to the discussion.
> 
> Best,
> 
> John
> 
> John Mathiason
> Adjunct Professor
> Cornell Institute for Public Affairs
> Cornell University
> 
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 14:54, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement"
> accomplishes for Internet users and service operators?
> >
> > My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such
> agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of
> legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For
> example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_  be subject
> to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop
> pretending that it doesn't have members).
> >
> > And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too
> remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me
> how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager
> in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there?
> >
> > This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is,
> but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard
> here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns.
> > --MM
> >
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake
> [william.drake at uzh.ch]
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped,
> U.S. warns
> >
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >
> > I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a
> host country agreement with an appropriate host country.
> >
> > Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva.   But on the off
> chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something
> more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement,
> in the US?  There's a few international organizations there that have these
> already...
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> John Mathiason
> Adjunct Professor
> Cornell Institute for Public Affairs
> Cornell University


-------------- 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