[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
froomkin at law.miami.edu
Wed Jun 10 10:36:22 EDT 2015
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku wrote:
>
> Parminder is emphasizing a true point. An organization which represents the
> interests of many nations, though located in one nation (as it must be) must
> not be subjected to laws that ought to be (and are) for national
It is, I think, possible to act as a trustee of international interests
while still having accountability rooted in national law. It may not be
possible to accommodate the desires of governments to, in effect, serve
directly on the governing body given the view of e.g. the Brazilian
government that this is unacceptable subordination to another state, but
some may see that as a feature rather than a bug.
> organizations. This should be the definition of international jurisdiction
> here. If the host nation's laws don't actually accommodate the multinational
> stakeholding nature of the organization, it's a ripe clue to the need for
> relocation to a place that is more friendly to the organization's
> operations.
>
The above contains a term that (to a lawyer) has multiple possible
meanings. The traditional way to " accommodate the multinational ...
nature" of an organization is to incorporate it in Switzerland, and have
no effective supervision. FIFA. IOC. No thanks.
So I would ask, what is the threat model here? What is a (mildly
realistic) example of a scenario in which one fears the entity will do
something legitimate and a national court (of the US, Canada, the nation
of your choice) would have an appreciable chance of blocking it? I would
note, for example, that the only time I can think of that a US court
overruled ICANN was when it froze out one of its own directors because the
staff disagreed with his views. That violated California law empowering
directors not to mention any sense of natural justice. The result was not
only just, it was necessary. And it is Exhibit A as to why we cannot
simply trust in ICANN, or New New Co's, good faith.
In other words, I submit that national court supervision in an appropriate
and democratic jurisdiction is far, far more likely to produce good
outcomes than bad ones, while the removal of this valuable check is almost
certain to lead to difficulties. What is more, those difficulties will
not be prevented by having the body be "international" for any currently
known meaning of the term.
Contrary to other messages in this thread, I do not believe that there is
much in the way of effective monitoring of many multi-national treaty
bodies other than by action of the member states. No one else has much
real leverage over WIPO, GATT, you name it. NGOs have some moral and
intellectual suasion, but some of their clout also comes from the fact
that it influences or might influence the members.
I prefer to attempt to engineer a much surer means of dealing with major
and substantially foreseeable problems.
> On Jun 10, 2015 11:27 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 09 June 2015 09:09 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
> School of
> Law wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, parminder wrote:
> >
> >> Are you saying that it is not possible for ICANN to undertake
> the
> >> functions that it needs to
> >> undertake while being an international institution
> incorporated under
> >> international law, and free
> >> from any countries jurisdiction in terms of its basic
> governance
> >> functions? I just want to be clear.
> >
> > I don't know what an "an international institution
> incorporated under
> > international law" is except bodies like FIFA (under Swiss
> law), or UN
> > bodies, or sui generis treaty bodies. It is certainly
> *possible* for
> > ICANN to have any of those statuses and to "function"; as far
> as I can
> > tell, however, it's just not possible to build in meaningful
> > accountability in those structures.
>
> There are of course problems and issues everywhere, but it can
> hardly be
> said that UN and/or treaty bodies work without meaningful
> accountability. Further, any new international treaty/ law
> establishing
> a new body - an really international ICANN for instance - can
> write all
> the accountability method it or we want to have written in it.
> >
> > There is no general international law of incorporation of
> which I am
> > aware. Corporate (formation) law is all national law. That
> is the
> > reality that must be confronted. There is no place I can go
> to get an
> > international corporate charter, and good thing too - why
> should I be
> > able to exempt myself from national law?
>
> This hits a fundamental issue - I see ICANN, in its ideal form,
> as a
> governance body, since it does governance functions, and not as
> a
> private corporation. So we need a new international treaty
> sanctifying
> ICANN as a global governance body - with its basic forms largely
> unchanged, with new accountability means (including judicial
> accountability) and not ways to be able incorporate a private
> kind of an
> entity outside national laws, which is admittedly both very
> difficult,
> and rather undesirable.
>
> parminder
>
> >
> >>
> >> If so, that would be an interesting assertion. Now, I am sure
> this is
> >> not true. However, I am not an
> >> international legal expert and not able to right now build
> and
> >> present the whole scenario for you on
> >> how it can be done. I am sure there are a number of
> international
> >> organisations that do different
> >> kind of complex activities and have found ways to do it under
> >> international law and jurisdiction.
> >
> > But those are in the main treaty bodies.
> >
> >> And if some new directions and evolutions are needed that can
> also be
> >> worked out (please see my last
> >> email on this count).
> >>
> >
> > Here we just disagree. I see the task as monsterously hard,
> the work
> > of a decade or more.
> >
> >> BTW it is a sad statement on the geo political economy of
> knowledge
> >> production in this area that
> >> there is not one full fledged scenario developed by anyone on
> how
> >> ICANN can undertakes its
> >> activities under international law/ jurisdiction - which I am
> pretty
> >> sure it can. Many parties,
> >> including governments have called for it, and yes I agree
> someone
> >> should come up with a full
> >> politico-legal and institutional description of how it can
> and should
> >> be done - with all the details
> >> in place. And that is the sad part of it, of how things stand
> at the
> >> global level, had now lopsided
> >> is resource distribution, all kinds of resources.
> >>
> >
> > Alas.
> >
> >> Not to shy away from responsibility - I am happy to
> collaborate with
> >> anyone if someone can out time
> >> into it.
> >>
> >> And no, it cannot be solved by any other country
> jurisdiction. Apart
> >> from it being still being wrong
> >> in principle, how would US accept that another jurisdiction
> is better
> >> than its own and accede to
> >> such a change. Accepting the patently justified fact that an
> >> international infrastructure should be
> >> governed internationally, on the other hand, is much easier .
> >>
> >
> > I would not dismiss this so quickly. I take a substantial
> fraction of
> > the opposition to US residual control (for that is all we are
> talking
> > about) to be tied to the US's status as defacto hegemon.
> Moving ICANN
> > to another state with a strong human rights record would
> answer that
> > part of the critique.
> >
> > In my view, a bespoke international structure is actually much
> harder
> > -- it would need to be invented almost from scratch. And it
> is bound
> > to be flawed; national rules are the result of at least
> decades if not
> > more of trial and error.
> >
> >> parminder
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 09 June 2015 07:31 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
> School
> >> of Law wrote:
> >> I don't know what it means to say that ICANN should be
> subject
> >> to "international
> >> jurisdiction and law". For the relevant issues, that
> sounds
> >> like a pretty empty set.
> >>
> >> As regards most of the sort of things one might expect
> to worry
> >> about - e.g. fidelity to
> >> articles of incorporation - international law is
> basically
> >> silent. And there is no
> >> relevant jurisdiction either. So I remain stuck in the
> >> position that there must be a
> >> state anchor whose courts are given the job. It does
> not of
> >> course need to be the US,
> >> although I would note that the US courts are by
> international
> >> standards not shy and
> >> actually fairly good at this sort of thing.
> >>
> >> I do think, however, that it should NOT be Switzerland,
> as its
> >> courts are historically
> >> over-deferential to international bodies - perhaps as
> part of
> >> state policy to be an
> >> attractive location for those high-spending
> international
> >> meetings.
> >>
> >> I'd be real happy with Canada, though.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, parminder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 09 June 2015 06:26 PM, Michael
> Froomkin -
> >> U.Miami School of Law
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think that bodies which do not need to
> fear
> >> supervision by
> >> legitimate courts end up
> >> like FIFA. FIFA had a legal status in
> Switzerland
> >> that basically
> >> insulated it the way
> >> that the Brazilian document seems to
> suggest would
> >> be what they want
> >> for ICANN. (It's
> >> also the legal status ICANN has at times
> suggested
> >> it would like.)
> >>
> >> The lesson of history seems unusually clear
> here.
> >>
> >>
> >> Agree that ICANN cannot be left jurisdictionally
> >> un-supervised - that may be
> >> even more dangerous
> >> than the present situation. However, the right
> >> supervision or oversight is
> >> of international
> >> jurisdiction and law, not that of the US . This
> is what
> >> Brazil has to make
> >> upfront as the
> >> implication of what it is really seeking, and its
> shyness
> >> and reticence to
> >> say so is what I noted as
> >> surprising in an earlier email in this thread.
> Not
> >> putting out clearly what
> >> exactly it wants would
> >> lead to misconceptions about its position, which
> IMHO can
> >> be seen from how
> >> Michael reads it. I am
> >> sure this is not how Brazil meant it - to free
> ICANN from
> >> all kinds of
> >> jurisdictional oversight
> >> whatsoever - but then Brazil needs to say clearly
> what is
> >> it that it wants,
> >> and how can it can
> >> obtained. Brazil, please come out of your
> NetMundial
> >> hangover and take
> >> political responsibility for
> >> what you say and seek!
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> It's good to see a law scholar
> involved in
> >> this discussion. I'll
> >> leave it to
> >> the Brazilian party to
> >> ultimate tell whether your reading is
> correct
> >> or not. In the
> >> meantime I'd
> >> volunteer the following
> >> comments.
> >>
> >> On Jun 8, 2015 10:46 PM, "Michael
> Froomkin -
> >> U.Miami School of
> >> Law"
> >> <froomkin at law.miami.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps I'm misreading something,
> but I
> >> read this document to
> >> make the
> >> following assertions:
> >> >
> >> > 1. All restrictions on ICANN's
> location
> >> must be removed.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And the question reopened for
> deliberation by
> >> all stakeholders,
> >> including
> >> governments among others.
> >> Only the outcome of such deliberation
> will be
> >> fully legitimate
> >> within the
> >> framework of the post-2015
> >> ICANN.
> >>
> >> > 2. ICANN does not have to leave the
> US but
> >> must be located in
> >> a place
> >> where the governing law has
> >> certain characteristics, including
> not having
> >> the possibiliity
> >> that courts
> >> overrule ICANN (or at
> >> least the IRP).
> >> >
> >> > (And, as it happens, the US is not
> such a
> >> place....)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not only avoiding courts overruling
> relevant
> >> outcomes of the
> >> Internet global
> >> community processes,
> >> but also examining and resolving the
> possible
> >> interferences/conflicts that
> >> might arise for
> >> government representatives being
> subject to a
> >> foreign country
> >> law simply in
> >> the process of attending
> >> to their regular duties (if they were
> to be
> >> fully engaged with
> >> ICANN).
> >>
> >> Quote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "From the Brazilian perspective the existing structure
> clearly imposes limits to the participation
> >>
> >>
> >> ???of governmental representatives, as it is unlikely
> that a representative of a foreign government
> >> w
> >> i
> >> ll be authorized (by its own government) to formally accept a
> position in a body pertaining to a U.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> S. corporation."
> >>
> >> This may be what you're getting at
> with your
> >> point 3 below, but
> >> I'm not sure
> >> whether the problem is
> >> only the fact that governments have
> to deal
> >> with a corporate
> >> form/law or
> >> whether it is altogether
> >> the fact that it is a single country
> law
> >> without any form of
> >> deliberate
> >> endorsement by the other
> >> governments (who also have law making
> power
> >> in their respective
> >> country just
> >> as the US government).
> >>
> >> Assuming your reading is correct, and
> if
> >> necessary complemented
> >> by my
> >> remarks above, I'd be
> >> interested in hearing from you about
> any
> >> issues you may see with
> >> the BR gov
> >> comments.
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 3. ICANN doesn't have to change its
> form,
> >> but it needs a form
> >> where
> >> governments are comfortable.
> >> >
> >> > (And, as it happens, the corporate
> form is
> >> not such a
> >> form....)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What am I missing?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Carlos A.
> Afonso wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> For the ones who are following the
> IANA
> >> transition process:
> >> attached
> >> >> please find the comments posted by
> the
> >> government of Brazil
> >> on June 03,
> >> >> 2015, in response to the call for
> public
> >> comments on the
> >> >> CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft
> Proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> I generally agree with the
> comments.
> >> >>
> >> >> fraternal regards
> >> >>
> >> >> --c.a.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > A. Michael Froomkin, http://law.tm
> >> > Laurie Silvers & Mitchell
> Rubenstein
> >> Distinguished Professor
> >> of Law
> >> > Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of
> Things We
> >> Like (Lots),
> >> jotwell.com
> >> > Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1
> (305)
> >> 284-4285 |
> >> froomkin at law.tm
> >> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box
> 248087,
> >> Coral Gables, FL
> >> 33124 USA
> >> > -->It's
> warm here.<--
> >> >
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
--
A. Michael Froomkin, http://law.tm
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com
Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1 (305) 284-4285 | froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
-->It's warm here.<--
-------------- 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
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list