<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 22 June 2016 01:12 AM,
Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21044D7A@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">snip<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#C00000">Guru
posited the term “the black swan scenario” and I was
reacting to that. Beyond that, I reject the notion that a
U.S. court ruling impacting an ICANN policy (e.g., in regard
to an alleged violation of antitrust law) is an “incursion
of the U.S. state”, as I equate the term U.S. state as
equivalent to the U.S. government</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
With 'US government' here perhaps you mean the executive branch of
the government. It is very odd that do not include judiciary in what
you take to be the 'US State' - I have never seen anyone not include
all branches of the state - legislative, judicial and executive - in
the conception of state. While the term 'government' sometimes does
get used more loosely (but never the term 'state'), even
'government' in fact includes all these three branches. You may be
interested to know how US gov see itself -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government">https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government</a> - as being composed of
all these three branches. <br>
<br>
So, not sure what to make of your rejecting 'the notion that...'.
But I am not here interested in semantics (although I have been on
the receiving end here over my alleged legal illiteracy). As a non
US citizen I prefer to be subject nether to US judiciary, nor
executive nor legislature, especially for a issue of global policy
making (as ICANN does). I am sure you a US citizen would not
similarly want to be subject to Indian jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
I have often asked this question to the many American who rather
unabashedly push for US law and state to have a global remit, as
you, and others are doing now, but never got an answer. Maybe you
would like to try it. Can you honestly say that had ICANN been in
the Indian jurisdiction, you would have accepted it (however good
you view otherwise may had been about Indian laws etc)? Please do
try to think about it - visualise it in your mind. This is 2016, not
the ninetieth century, lets work on some basic values of democracy,
and political equality of people and groups. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21044D7A@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#C00000"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p><br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#C00000">My
understanding is that the WS2 process kicks off officially
on Sunday, June 26<sup>th</sup> in Helsinki. That’s all I
meant.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No problem. Look forward to a discussion on the subject, before or
after the 26th. Best wishes for Helsinki.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21044D7A@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#C00000"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip
S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw
LLC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155
F Street, NW</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite
1050</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington,
DC 20004</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/Cell</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter:
@VlawDC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Guru Acharya<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 20, 2016 1:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Roelof Meijer; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Economist | A virtual
turf war: The scramble for .africa</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Phil,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your five points arguing that the
California jurisdiction is the best are profound but they
unfortunately reduce the debate to a simple question of
"which jurisdiction is best". There are many other ways of
looking at the debate and I hope you would appreciate the
concerns of emerging countries and seek to find a middle
ground while framing the debate.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I first explain your lens of looking at
the issue and then propose Teubner's Reflexive Law
approach as the way forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896509">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896509</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your lens is what Teubner calls "Formal
Law" and thus the simple question you ask is "which
jurisdiction is the best?" And thus your simple conclusion
is that US (California) is the best jurisdiction for the
five points listed by you. All five points unarguably
correct.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first alternative lens is
"Substantive Law" and the question you would ask is
purposive substantively - "what are the characteristics of
the ideal jurisdiction and can we get the
US/alternate/international jurisdiction to embrace those
ideal characteristics?" This is what Parminder appears to
be arguing for. Unfortunately this too is shallow and
would fall victim to the black swan scenario since most of
our arguments are based on inductive reasoning arising
from historical observations.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second alternative lens is
"Reflexive Law" and that is the approach I suggest as the
way forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the reflexive approach, you would
ask "what are the institutional mechanisms or procedures
to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be addressed in an
adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer
tenable, however rare it may it?" In the absolute rarest
of rare cases that the US legislature or judiciary try to
interfere with community decisions (the black swan
scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this interference
is contained/minimised? What are the institutional
mechanisms or procedures for addressing the situation
where the US (or any other) jurisdiction is no longer
hospitable/ideal for the ICANN policymaking or IANA
functions? These are the questions that we should be
asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus the focus needs to be on building
a procedure/institutional mechanism for addressing adverse
situations that can continuously self-correct the
community to the right path rather than presuming that
there is one perfect/ideal/best jurisdiction or scenario
where no black swans exist.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are numerous Reflexive Law
strategies.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) The first simple strategy is an
information strategy wherein ICANN must publicly disclose
any correspondence between US entities (executive,
judicial or legislative) and ICANN.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) The second strategy could be
procedural. An objective index could be created that
publicly marks the level of interference by US entities
(executive, judicial or legislative). Once the threshold
is crossed on that index, a process to change jurisdiction
(perhaps the separation process) is initiated.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3) The third strategy could be to build
redundancy. In this, there exists a duplicate PTI in an
alternate jurisdiction that performs all IANA functions
redundantly in parallel and is made authoritative in the
rare scenario that the US jurisdiction can not be trusted.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">While the list is illustrative, I hope
it helps frame the debate better than the simple question
of "which jurisdiction is best".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Roelof
Meijer <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Well, yes. But. We wanted (legal)
enforceability, and got it.<br>
And the .africa outcome illustrates (apart from the
neo-colonalization<br>
perspective) that <rule of law> and <justice>
do not guarantee the <right><br>
outcome of such a process<br>
<br>
Roelof<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19-06-16 12:54, "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
on<br>
behalf of Nigel Roberts" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">on behalf of <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
>Welcome to the world of competing interests,
advanced to the maxiumn by<br>
>all lawful means.<br>
><br>
>This is why we need strong accountability, and
respect for human rights,<br>
>embedded in ICANN's culture, rather than imposed
from the outside by a<br>
>review tribunal.<br>
><br>
>On 19/06/16 10:55, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:<br>
>> Jordan and all,<br>
>><br>
>> You are right that the ICANN accountability
is an essential thing, and<br>
>> that all concerned parties should have the
opportunity to challenge<br>
>> ICANN for any violation of its bylaws and
articles.<br>
>><br>
>> But in this case of dot africa, the issue is
too obvious that<br>
>> dotconnectafrica can¹t get the support of the
African community<br>
>> including Governments. they have at the
contrary strong opposition of<br>
>> some of them. And the applicant guide book is
too clear on this point:<br>
>> any Geographic application should gain, inter
alias, the explicit<br>
>> support of the government(s).<br>
>><br>
>> All the steps for a positive end of the
application of ZACR (officially<br>
>> tasked by the African Union to apply for dot
africa on their behalf)<br>
>> were accomplished and the decision of the
ICANN was justified.<br>
>><br>
>> dotconnectafrica argued through the IRP that
ICANN wasn¹t fair in its<br>
>> decision. The IRP process took too longtime
because one of the panel<br>
>> members passed away. There wasn¹t a maximum
time for the IRP<br>
>> consideration, and that is one of the issues
we must tackle in the IRP<br>
>> sub-group about IRP. After the late
replacement of the dead member of<br>
>> the panel, everything was to be restarted.
this longtime gives rooms for<br>
>> every possible gaming. dont forget that
dotconnectafrica has paid a huge<br>
>> amont of money in advertising, communication
and sponsoring prior to<br>
>> the opening of the new gTLD round. the result
of the IRP for them is<br>
>>vital.<br>
>><br>
>> ICANN applied the decision of the IRP and
dotconnectafrica lost the<br>
>> geographic panel evaluation. Now, they went
to the court to delay more<br>
>> and more the delegation of dot africa.<br>
>><br>
>> In the mean time, the Africans are prevented
from having their<br>
>> continental TLD because this game is
continuing even if the case is too<br>
>> clear. Where is the public interest here?
where is the interest of<br>
>> Africa? As African, I¹m too disappointed
because we are the hostage of a<br>
>> system that privilege the private interest
over the African community<br>
>>one.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>----<br>
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*<br>
>> Executive Director<br>
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet
Associations (*FMAI*)<br>
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114<br>
>> +216 52 385 114<br>
>><br>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>----<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> Le 19 juin 2016 à 08:11, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>>
a écrit :<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Sunday 19 June 2016 12:11 PM, Seun
Ojedeji wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hello Parminder,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As an African, I would tend to agree
with your point and wish that<br>
>>>> your conclusion point was the case
(as a reactive measure). However<br>
>>>> as you know, we have discussed this
extensively in the past (on<br>
>>>> different fora) and we found that the
means to the end of such is so<br>
>>>> complicated and the end itself would
ultimately create a govt lead<br>
>>>> ICANN which i certainly don't want.<br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> If ICANN functioning under California non
profit law - made by<br>
>>> government - and subject to US
jurisdiction - also made of and by<br>
>>> governments (and governments alone) -
can continue to be seem and<br>
>>> treated as a multistakeholder
organisation, to your and others'<br>
>>> satisfaction, there is simply no reason
why ICANN cannot be and<br>
>>> function similarly under international
jurisdiction, created by<br>
>>> international law.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Your preferring US law/ jurisdiction over
international law/<br>
>>> jurisdiction is, simply and nothing more
than, a statement of your<br>
>>> preferring the US jurisdiction over
international jurisdiction (<br>
>>> which, while you have a right to your
choices, I consider<br>
>>> democratically unfortunate). None is less
complex that the other.<br>
>>> There are hundreds of international
organisations functioning under<br>
>>> international law, and so can ICANN. And
if ICANN has some special<br>
>>> contexts and needs, that would be met by
relevant innovations in<br>
>>> international law, but not by a
democratic regression to subjecting<br>
>>> the world to the US law. Democracy is
precious, and people have done<br>
>>> much to achieve it. Please dont treat it
lightly, citing<br>
>>> technicalities against it. That is
extremely unfortunate. Sorry for<br>
>>> the analogy but it directly applies;
every tyrant/ dictator is prone<br>
>>> to argue that democracy is messy, and
difficult and, as you say,<br>
>>> complicated. But such an argument does
not carry, does it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> To call an ICANN which is constituted
under US law, and fully<br>
>>> answerable to US jurisdiction (meaning US
government, its all<br>
>>> branches), as fully multistakeholder;<br>
>>><br>
>>> and, at the same time, an ICANN
functioning exactly in the same<br>
>>> manner, but now under international law
and jurisdiction, as (to quote<br>
>>> you) becoming a government let ICANN<br>
>>><br>
>>> is simply to make a misleading statement.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Although, the fallacy contained in it is
as clear as daylight, among<br>
>>> status quoists circles this statement or
argument continues to be made<br>
>>> and re-made. But, for other than the
fully converted and therefore<br>
>>> impervious to simple logic, and demands
of that high value of<br>
>>> democracy, it takes away nothing from
the my arguments regarding the<br>
>>> unfairness of ICANN being subject to US
jurisdiction, and the urgent<br>
>>> need to move it to international
jurisdiction, which you are right, I<br>
>>> have often made on various fora, and will
keep making. It is a<br>
>>> political act.<br>
>>><br>
>>> regards, parminder<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Regards<br>
>>>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 19 Jun 2016 07:28, "parminder"<br>
>>>> <<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Sunday 19 June 2016 11:31 AM,
Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
>>>>> I may have missed something,
Parminder, but isn't it a plus<br>
>>>>> rather than a negative for
ICANN accountability that process<br>
>>>>> errors can be appealed and
the company held to account for them?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Jordan<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In may make ICANN accountable,
but to a system that is<br>
>>>> unaccountable to the global
public, and is only accountable to<br>
>>>> the US public (there could even
be cases where these two could be<br>
>>>> in partial conflict) - that in
sum is the jurisdiction issue.<br>
>>>> ICANN accountability issue is
different, though linked, bec it<br>
>>>> has to be accountable, but to the
right system, which itself is<br>
>>>> accountable to the global public.
Different 'layers' of<br>
>>>> accountability are implicated
here, as people in IG space will<br>
>>>> like to say!<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Here the issue is, a US court has
no right to (exclusively)<br>
>>>> adjudicate the rights of the
African people, bec African people<br>
>>>> had no part in making or
legitimising the system that the US<br>
>>>> court is a part of. Dont you see
what problem we will be facing<br>
>>>> if the US court says that
fairness of process or whatever demands<br>
>>>> that .africa goes to DCA. If you
were an African, what would you<br>
>>>> feel?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> An ICANN under international law
will be subject to only an<br>
>>>> international judicial process,
which Africa is equally a part<br>
>>>> of, and gives legitimacy to.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> parminder<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Jordan<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 19 June 2016 at 07:26,
parminder<br>
>>>>> <<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>><br>
>>>>>wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Sunday 19 June 2016
04:13 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> The Economist | A
virtual turf war: The scramble for<br>
>>>>>> .africa<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyer"
target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyer</a><br>
>>>>>>s-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg%7<br>
>>>>>>Cd><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawy"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawy">http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawy</a></a><br>
>>>>>>ers-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg<br>
>>>>>>%7Cd<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Not that this fact is
being discovered now, but it still is<br>
>>>>> the simplest and clearest
proof that US jurisdiction over<br>
>>>>> ICANN's policy processes
and decisions is absolutely<br>
>>>>> untenable. Either the US
makes a special legal provision<br>
>>>>> unilaterally foregoing
judicial, legislative and executive<br>
>>>>> jurisdiction over ICANN
policy functions, or the normal<br>
>>>>> route of ICANN's
incorporation under international law is<br>
>>>>> taken, making ICANN an
international organisation under<br>
>>>>> international law, and
protected from US jurisdiction under<br>
>>>>> a host country agreement.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> parminder<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></a><br>
>>>>>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> Jordan Carter<br>
>>>>> Wellington, New Zealand<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> +64 21 442 649 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649">tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649</a>><br>
>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz">jordan@jordancarter.org.nz</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz">jordan@jordancarter.org.nz</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#A0A0A0" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No
virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4604/12441 - Release
Date: 06/17/16<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#A0A0A0" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No
virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4604/12460 - Release
Date: 06/20/16<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>