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

[parminder]

On Tuesday 11 September 2012 03:54 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> Parminder
>
> One can put is also differently... if it is just US law then it does 
> have de facto global application...

Of course, it is so. Riaz. The exceptions to general rule of national 
territoriality of jurisdictions has mostly been to US's benefit, given 
its global power. The principle target of my argument was the 
proposition that other countries, especially developing ones, could 
exercise their jurisdiction, to a significant extent, over an US based 
institution. I simply see no basis for it.

While on the issue, exceptions to international law have also mostly 
been exercised by the US, again, because of its global power.


parminder

> now if these proposals were to be take seriously... then how would 
> ICANN deal with the issues at the edges... porn in Saudi, religious 
> and political symbols in France, sacred issues in India, etc... most 
> international regimes are adept (if oft inept)  at dealing with 
> diversity... do you even see a trace of this in ICANN (although it is 
> improving) or in the discourse...
>
> If difference cannot be dealt with operationally in a sound way (i.e. 
> deal with national sentiments, cultures, approaches, alternative 
> conceptions of the good life, etc) then it remains an American 
> imposition at least at the edges (where it does tend to count more 
> than other issues).... And it is not just national or individualistic 
> diversity one is talking about... it is also policy diversity...
>
> riaz
>
>
> On 2012/09/11 12:49 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>> We live in a world that is made of territorially defined and bound 
>> jurisdictions. Plus, there is some international law/ jurisdiction, 
>> albeit rather weak. There are no doubts exceptions, whereby 
>> territorial jurisdictions are able to, in some way or the other, 
>> reach out to other parts of the world. (This mostly happens  on the 
>> 'powerful gets his way' principle, which is not to be recommended.) 
>> Admittedly, there are more such instances in a more connected world 
>> today then ever before, but they still are 'exceptions'.  The problem 
>> is that Milton and you are trying to propose a governance system out 
>> of these exceptions. No, it doesn't work that way. We cant work with 
>> exceptions, we have to work with the main system. And the main system 
>> is broken, for which please see below...
>>
>>
>> On Monday 10 September 2012 02:11 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>> Hey Parminder,
>>>
>>> If Milton's signing off, I'll sign on for one more attempt.
>>>
>>> My aim is not to encourage lawsuits against the hegemon's proxy 
>>> ICANN - but I feel them coming on anyway, with the .xxx one just the 
>>> tip of the hegemon's melting iceberg.  (I'm enjoying this 70s 
>>> flashback, don't get to use the word hegemon twice in one sentence 
>>> often these days : )
>>
>> You do agree that there are many lawsuits coming ICANN's way. Are we 
>> prepared for the outcomes of these lawsuits, which are as inevitable. 
>> How long will the US executive be able to put persuasive pressure on 
>> the US judiciary to not do anything that may rock the boat. I dont 
>> think the US judiciary is that subservient, and, sooner or later,it 
>> will decisively apply the law. In an email on 27th Aug, responding to 
>> my specific poser,David Conrad developed the scenario that may follow 
>> an adverse decision in the .xxx case. It culminated in the 
>> 'possibility' of .xxx having to be removed from the root. Are we 
>> prepared for this eventuality. Would the legitimacy of the system not 
>> collapse right away! (I must mention here that David thought it wont).
>>
>> There could be other impacts of an adverse decision in the .xxx case; 
>> ICANN may be directed by the court to review all its policies and 
>> actions vis a vis whatever the court thinks needs to be done to 
>> ensure consistent application of US's anti-trust (or any other) law. 
>> ICANN will immediately *have* to  do so....
>>
>> Are you/ we prepared for this very plausible scenario? Responsible 
>> governance systems and its stakeholders do not just sit around and 
>> wait for such a 'very probable' eventuality to happen. What is our 
>> response/ preparation to it? Does this not suggest that the present 
>> system of oversight of, and jurisdiction application over, ICANN is 
>> broken?
>>
>> Your and Milton's response to it seems to be: it does not matter if 
>> ICANN has to do all the above things on directions of a US court; we 
>> will simply tell all the outraged/ protesting people from other 
>> countries that ICANN will also respond *exactly" in the same manner 
>> if a court from their countries (India, Ghana, Nepa, Indonesia, 
>> Brazil etc) were to find faults with ICANN and propose remedial 
>> measures. /This will be a patently untrue statement/. I can assure 
>> you that no one will buy it. So, I advice you, please be ready for 
>> some other response.
>>
>> As for your and Milton's claim that if ICANN is subject to 
>> international law, the corresponding immunities that it will get from 
>> national jurisdiction could be a problem. Yes, it could be a problem 
>> for USians, since at present ICANN is subject to their national law. 
>> It is not a such problem to people of other countries. On the other 
>> hand, it should be obvious that any international law will be framed 
>> in a manner that takes as much account of ICANN functions as 
>> possible.Even if specific legal provisions do not exist in some 
>> aspects, the international system is capable of delivering on basis 
>> of principles of natural justice and other such forms of jurisprudence.
>>
>> Thanks, but we can do without US law getting imposed on the whole 
>> world, which, to me, is what your and Milton's critique of 'any' 
>> international system/ jurisdiction is all about.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> So here's my free legal counsel for you: anyone anywhere can play.
>>>
>>> Just as there was nothing to prevent Google or Yahoo, or earlier 
>>> Compuserve being taken to court in France or Brazil, or Germany and 
>>> Italy, and senior executives threatened, tried, sentenced and/or 
>>> subject to arrest if they set foot in those countries - meaning even 
>>> if they had no staff there, but just passed through say the 
>>> Frankfurt airport, or stopped in Rome for a vacation  - so too could 
>>> ICANN staff be subject to arrest; and ICANN fined for example, 
>>> should it not obey a court order in Pakistan or India or anywhere else.
>>>
>>> We can review the specific circumstances in the various cases I 
>>> mentioned in passing if you want, but basically the message is as 
>>> the Internet and Internet services pervades more deeply into all 
>>> nation's daily lives, then we should not be surprised when ICANN is, 
>>> eventually, challenged in various nation's courts. Most readily 
>>> where the organization has an establishment, meaning staff as in 
>>> Brussels and Australia. But even absent staff presence, I could roll 
>>> out 100 hypothetical scenarios on how ICANN decisions could be 
>>> challenged, in Pakistani or Indian, or Brunei's, really any nation's 
>>> legal system.
>>>
>>> Just cuz it's a non-profit with a SoCal HQ does not mean the 
>>> organization is exempt from - any - legal sanction, anywhere.
>>>
>>> Whether the balance of power over the administration of changes to 
>>> the root zone file, and/or the creation of this or that new gtld, 
>>> should be a matter of hundreds of national jurisdictions, or handled 
>>> through some form of global collective action, is indeed the 
>>> question. But while I am practicing law without a license here, as 
>>> the saying goes in US domestic politics, at least I am making 
>>> reality based statements.  Every single thing ICANN does could be 
>>> challenged in any national court.  Winning a case, and/or explaining 
>>> to a judge or jury why a case was brought, is of course never a sure 
>>> thing. But the ability in principle of Indian courts to rule on 
>>> cases in which Indian citizens, businesses, and/or government 
>>> agencies claim injury, is not in any way impaired by the location of 
>>> ICANN's HQ.
>>>
>>> ICANN, on the other hand, if established under international public 
>>> or private law, could indeed gain various immunities, which its 
>>> actions do not now enjoy. Milton's 100% right to say careful what we 
>>> wish for here, since moving to a treaty or international convention 
>>> as the source of ICANN's legal status, could just as easily make 
>>> ICANN less responsive as more responsive to national jurisdictions, 
>>> and individuals. ANY national jurisdiction. But that is a 
>>> possibility and not a certainty, as it would depend on the specifics 
>>> agreed to by nations signing onto that hypothetical treaty.
>>>
>>> If you don't believe me, just ask any practicing international 
>>> (private) lawyer. I'm guessing her answer would be another question: 
>>> how deep are your pockets? : ) But anyone with enough money to make 
>>> the challenge to for example - any - gtld string, can follow ICANN 
>>> procedures, or they can turn to their own national courts. Although 
>>> those courts might find it annoying if they are dragged into the 
>>> middle of an arcane dispute if remedies from within the ICANN system 
>>> were not exhausted first.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, like I said some time back, this whole dialogue has 
>>> gotten - more or less nowhere - since apparently it is more fun to 
>>> flash back to the 80s or hegemonic 70s than try to make sense of 
>>> what should be done next, to align ICANN and other elements of 
>>> Internet governance more closely with all of the global communities 
>>> that are affected by those decisions.
>>>
>>> Since there has been no new or original suggestions made, then we do 
>>> seem to be stuck in a time warp. A domestic US non-profit 
>>> corporation, albeit one that strives mightily to - should I say 
>>> sucker, or invite? : ) - people from around the world to do the 
>>> heavy volunteer lifting to keep the global net up and operating, is 
>>> the main game in the global Internet governance village, still.
>>>
>>> Seeing as apparently noone has a better idea, or has even concrete 
>>> suggestions on how to get from here to there, there being a more 
>>> globally equitable future, then yeah we are stuck.  Bummer.
>>>
>>> Or maybe, I repeat again, this dialogue, while at times fun, really 
>>> suggests it is time to get serious about Norbert's enhanced 
>>> cooperation task force idea to figure a way forward. Since none of 
>>> us are managing to do any better, absent that. imho.   If we are 
>>> counting on the ITU to do so in December....well I got a few virtual 
>>> bridges for sale that are more solid.  Better to give the 
>>> (IGF-responsive) task force idea a shot, I suggest.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder 
>>> [parminder at itforchange.net]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 09, 2012 2:30 AM
>>> *To:* Milton L Mueller
>>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell 
>>> Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 06 September 2012 10:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Parminder, your responses are degenerating beyond the point where 
>>>> it is worth responding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are just getting desperate, Milton...
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be more interested in playing rhetorical games than in 
>>>> reaching agreement or improving understanding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Meaning, rather than simply agreeing with your most untenable 
>>> proposition about parity of application of jurisdiction over ICANN 
>>> between US and all other 191 states.
>>>
>>>> I will point out the reasons I say these things and then suspend 
>>>> any further communication with you on these issues
>>>>
>>>>     */[Milton L Mueller] Any law from ANY jurisdiction constraining
>>>>     or dictating ICANN’s action would have global effect, insofar
>>>>     as the global Internet relies on ICANN to administer the DNS./*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Milton, In face of clear facts to the contrary, you continue to 
>>>> claim that EU's, India's, Ghana's, all of 192 government's, 
>>>> jurisdictions have similar implication and impact on ICANN. I dont 
>>>> think I need to labour to disprove this patently absurd proposition.
>>>>
>>>> ØRead my sentence, which is a conditional statement and says that 
>>>> if "any law from any jurisdiction"
>>>>
>>>> Øcould "constrain or dictate ICANN's action" it would have global 
>>>> effect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your above statement - 'If' any law from any jurisdiction 'could' 
>>> constrain or dictate ICANN's action, it would have global effect - 
>>> says nothing at all other that that 'ICANN's actions have global 
>>> effect', something which no one disputes. What other meaning does 
>>> this sentence carry?
>>>
>>>  What is under disputation is - laws from '*/which/*' jurisdiction 
>>> can constraint or dictate ICANN's '/*global*/' actions? You say that 
>>> laws from all 192 country jurisdictions have the 'same' (or at least 
>>> similar) effect as from US's jurisdiction of 'constraining or 
>>> dictating ICANN's /*global*/ action'. This is what I call as a 
>>> /*patently absurd proposition. */
>>>
>>>> But just to continue with the present discussion on the .xxx case, 
>>>> even if the ICM registry was * not* US based, the porn industry 
>>>> majors could/ would have brought the case against ICANN for 
>>>> instituting .xxx (since the registry would of course have serviced 
>>>> domain name demands from the US among others). ICANN would still be 
>>>> forced to defend itself in the case, and if it lost the case to 
>>>> annul or modify .xxx agreement.
>>>>
>>>> ØI have asked you two questions related to this that you have 
>>>> steadfastly ducked:
>>>>
>>>> Ø1) Do you think ICANN should be immune from antitrust? Yes or no.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course ICANN should be subject to all kinds of public interest 
>>> laws, as every entity should be - anti-trust, but also others, like 
>>> those aimed at preserving and deepening public domain..... ( thus 
>>> being prevented from giving off generic names like school, kid, 
>>> beauty, cloud etc as private tlds).
>>>
>>>> Ø2) What stops such a case from being brought in the EU? ICANN has 
>>>> offices in Brussels, and its "service" or operations could be 
>>>> considered global, thus in the EU.
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, you are cleverly skipping examples of India, Ghana and 
>>> Bangladesh that I used, and only employing EU's case becuase ICANN 
>>> has an office there... Your argument can be challenged simply on 
>>> this ground, what about the other countries, especially the 
>>> developing ones where ICANN chooses not to have an office. (Equity, 
>>> Milton, equity, dont lose sight of this simple democratic value!)
>>>
>>> On the other hand, even if ICANN has a Brussels office, this fact 
>>> does not put EU's jurisdiction over ICANN anywhere close to a 
>>> similar level to US's. Apart from the fact that, if the push comes 
>>> to shove, ICANN can simply close or shift Brussels office,  offshore 
>>> offices have often claimed lack of control over and accountability 
>>> for parent bodies decisions vis a vis the jurisdictions in which 
>>> they are located.  (This is well known, but if you want examples, I 
>>> can give them.)
>>>
>>>> It does not take a political scientist to understand that the same 
>>>> is not true vis a vis the jurisdiction of any other of 192 countries.
>>>>
>>>> ØYou have not made any argument to explain why this is true. You 
>>>> have merely asserted it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I did make a clear argument using the scenario of an .xxx 
>>> related case being brought in a Bangladesh court. Pl see my last 
>>> email to which you respond. But you completely ignored that argument.
>>>
>>>> ØThe US antitrust case is in fact no different from an antitrust 
>>>> case that might be brought in the EU,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Completely wrong. For such a case brought in the EU, even if .xxx 
>>> registry was based in EU, (1) ICANN is not obliged to defend the 
>>> case (2) even if .xxx was to lose the case, it is the registry that 
>>> will have to renege from the ICANN agreement, ICANN would have to do 
>>> 'nothing'. However if the case is lost in the US, ICANN itself has 
>>> to undertake certain actions- and also keep the judicial verdict in 
>>> mind for future actions - something which is incongruent with 
>>> ICANN's global governance status. That is the point.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, and I said this in the previous email as well, 
>>> which you seem to read selectively, even if .xxx registry was not in 
>>> the US, the porn industry could still have brought the case to a US 
>>> court against ICANN- .xxx agreement, which is simply not possible 
>>> vis a vis any other country jurisdiction.
>>>
>>>> ØIf indeed ICANN were engaged in restraint of the domain name trade 
>>>> in conjunction with a EU-based
>>>>
>>>> Øregistry, the effect would be exactly the same in both cases. 
>>>> ICANN's status as a California Corp.
>>>>
>>>> Ømakes no difference here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> see above
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> And if it indeed is already subject to 192 jurisdiction, even 
>>>> efficiency, since you dont recognise issues of equity and democracy
>>>>
>>>> ØYou lost me here. I am the one in favor of democracy (e.g., 
>>>> election of ICANN board), you are the one in favor of control by 
>>>> states.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am glad to have an elected board if you can assemble the 
>>> electorate in a manner that is equitous and then ensure fair 
>>> polling. Please tell me your proposal. As for 'control by the 
>>> states' I am happy to have any kind of direct democracy not only in 
>>> IG space but also all other spaces of global governance (your view 
>>> on this please). And till we have it, instead of one country 
>>> dictating to the world, representational democracy will do (while 
>>> all efforts at national and international level should be kept up to 
>>> see that these purported 'representatives' are indeed democratically 
>>> so). Imperfect democracy and representativity cannot be taken as an 
>>> excuse for perpetuating hegemony and one-country dictatorship.
>>>
>>> with regards
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120911/238124e7/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