Comments (7)

1. Avri Doria says:

   September 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm

   There are a lot of things I fault Fadi and crew for. But in this case, he really does appear to be following through on his promise to internationalize ICANN, while leaving the headquarters under US jurisdiction.
   I have long favored internationalization of ICANN. And by that I don’t mean becoming some form of ITU-A, but having a genuinely international profile that fits its unique multistakeholder aspirations. I am not sure that it can be done while maintaining a US headquarters, and I am also not sure that the international fuzzing that ICANN Staff is working on will be sufficient – but it is a start. I also understand that the consensus based contracts by which ICANN performs its regulatory function are dependent on US law, as well as the IANA contract having been restricted to US domiciled companies. This limits the ability to become fully international. Since I first heard of the GDD, it seemed like the vehicle by which ICANN could be international and yet remain a US non-prift for the purpose of its contracting on gTLDs.
   It is an interesting evolutionary process on a necessary goal, so i wish all those in ICANN staff who are moving around the world, the best of luck in genuinely internationalizing.

   Reply
2. Becky Burr says:

   September 6, 2013 at 8:21 pm

   Like Avri, I support continued internationalization of ICANN. That said, the concerns being expressed about Fadi’s statement in Korea go beyond punctuation and are not really about jurisdiction.
   Fadi’s statement implies that the Geneva office is not a continuation of its current internationalization efforts – rather, ICANN is ‘seeking to become” something that it is not currently. But under your definition, isn’t ICANN already an “international organization”? It has formal operations outside of the US. The Brussels office is a “branch” of the US organization, but it is still subject to the jurisdiction of Belgium with respect to its activities there. ICANN will be subject to Swiss law with respect to its activities in Switzerland, whether it operates as a branch or a separate legal entity.
   According to the OECD, international organizations (lower or upper case) are “entities established by formal political agreements between their members that have the status of international treaties; their existence is recognised by law in their member countries; they are not treated as resident institutional units of the countries in which they are located.”
   http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1434
   At least some folks – particularly in Geneva – will hear that definition when Fadi talks about an “international organization.” Even if the only change Fadi was signaling is the corporate form ICANN is adopting for its Geneva operations, use of the term “international organization” is at least confusing – and potentially a lot more than confusing.

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     September 6, 2013 at 9:06 pm

     I don’t doubt that ICANN eventually wants to throw off the shackles of the US and become a proper international organization. That goal predates Chehade.
     Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it supposed to happen before Clinton left office?
     If it does happen, I expect it will happen gradually. The Geneva office is probably one step along that process. The point of this article was to clarify that it’s not happening this week.

     Reply
     • Becky Burr says:

       September 6, 2013 at 9:41 pm

       By “proper international organization” do you mean an organization that enjoys privileges, immunities, and exemptions from local law such as the International Fertilizer Development Center or the International Committee on the Red Cross? If so, there was never any expectation that ICANN would become that. In fact, the White Paper specifically talks about the importance of applicable law continuing to apply – e.g., competition law. (And “applicable” does not equate to US law in that context.)

       Reply
       • Kevin Murphy says:

         September 6, 2013 at 10:06 pm

         I lack the legal training to respond to that question in any useful way.
         I merely meant an organization whose powers do not flow from any one specific government.
         I may have accidentally conflated and confused ICANN with IANA in my previous comment about the Clinton timeline.

         Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     September 7, 2013 at 12:18 am

     To answer your original question, I don’t think Chehade intended “international organization” to mean anything more than the common meaning of the term. I don’t think it was his intention to leak out ICANN’s plans for world domination.
     I think it’s much more likely that Chehade was just catering his speech to his local audience, as is his wont.
     He started the speech by claiming Asia as his “birth continent”. He was born in Beirut. The speech was delivered in Seoul. I’ve never been to either city but I don’t think they have much in common.
     When he was speaking in Africa earlier this year, he described himself as an African.
     When he was talking to registries and registrars, he described himself as a businessman with their interests in mind.
     When he was talking to IP interests later he backtracked and described himself as a public servant.
     It’s just the way he delivers speeches. He talks to his audience. That’s why my April 1 blog post this year was about him accidentally walking into the wrong conference and explaining his plan to cure herpes.
     In this speech in Korea, he wasn’t attempting to secretly tip off IGO types about his ambitions to make ICANN an “International Organization”, he was just telling his Asian audience that ICANN is not just American.
     In my opinion, that’s all it was.

     Reply
3. Rubens Kuhl says:

   September 6, 2013 at 8:35 pm

   Switzerland jurisdiction is already defined in new gTLD agreements for IGOs and governmental entities:
   [Alternative Section 5.2 Arbitration text for intergovernmental organizations or governmental entities or other special circumstances:]
   (…)
   In any litigation involving ICANN concerning this Agreement, jurisdiction and exclusive venue for such litigation will be in a court
   located in Geneva, Switzerland, unless another location is mutually agreed upon by
   Registry Operator and ICANN;
   —–
   Without knowledge of swiss laws I won’t guess if it’s required for at least one party to have a legal presence in Switzerland to have a case heard by swiss courts, but it probably doesn’t hurt.

   Reply