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

Tue Sep 11 15:37:14 EDT 2012

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Parminder
>
> One can put is also differently... if it is just US law then it does have
> de facto global application... 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...
>
> In relation to the issues you raise, Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) already raises the three
exceptions, national security, public morality and if provided for by law.
I think there is some confusion with governance. ICANN is kind of like a
phone book. Countries are sovereign and free to have a McDonalds in their
country and if it is their preference not to create "beef-based" products
in India or "pork based products in other countries just means that
countries choose what they want in their own countries. Even with the case
of Vinay Rai, the Editor of an Indian newspaper who went to the New Delhi
courts to take Facebook and Google to take down certain sites which he
demanded were in violation of India's national laws.

> 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.
>

Having participated in policy processes and commenting on them, I can say
that they welcome input and diversity. How can one complain unless one
participates?

> (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...
>
> Participate in the Policy discussions and you will see the Policy
diversity. I mean look at the IDNs and the policies being developed, is
that not diversity enough?

I

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.
>
>
>
> Ø  Read my sentence, which is a conditional statement and says that if
> "any law from any jurisdiction"
>
> Ø  could "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.
>
>
>
> Ø  I have asked you two questions related to this that you have
> steadfastly ducked:
>
>   Ø  1) 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).
>
>   Ø  2) 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.
>
>
>
> Ø  You 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.
>
>   Ø  The 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.
>
>   Ø  If indeed ICANN were engaged in restraint of the domain name trade
> in conjunction with a EU-based
>
> Ø  registry, the effect would be exactly the same in both cases. ICANN's
> status as a California Corp.
>
> Ø  makes 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
>
> Ø  You 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120912/e5746fc9/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