<div dir="ltr">No <div><br></div><div>&quot;Any nation controls its own ccTLD&quot; is very much disputed and does not apply to all ccTLDs. I am sure the ccNSO community can shed light on that. Using the term &quot;own&quot; implies that ccTLD is property while it is yet to be clarified and some ccTLD operators argue vehemently against it.   And I don&#39;t know what is meant by nations here. It is meant the states? So states own their ccTLDs? Not necessarily and not all ccTLDs operate similarly. </div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 June 2016 at 23:30, Phil Corwin <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I&#39;m not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own ccTLD.<br>
<br>
ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn&#39;t decide who performs technical and other  operations for a given ccTLD.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
Virtualaw LLC<br>
1155 F Street, NW<br>
Suite 1050<br>
Washington, DC 20004<br>
202-559-8597/Direct<br>
202-559-8750/Fax<br>
202-255-6172/Cell<br>
<br>
Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
 <br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">&quot;Luck is the residue of design&quot; -- Branch Rickey<br>
<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts<br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:11 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">And the redelegation of .US  . . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/06/16 20:39, Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
&gt; So long as we have a common understanding of what would constitute<br>
&gt; &quot;interference by the U.S. government&quot; (of which there has been little<br>
&gt; to none since ICANN&#39;s inception, with the possible exception of the<br>
&gt; delay in .xxx delegation to the root). I presume you are advocating<br>
&gt; deciding upon a process to address such an occurrence, rather than<br>
&gt; making a decision now about an alternate jurisdiction for a situation<br>
&gt; that may never arise, or occur decades from now.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;ll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include<br>
&gt; interference in ICANN&#39;s policymaking process (outside of advocacy<br>
&gt; within the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root<br>
&gt; zone, through methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I don&#39;t think it should include private litigation brought against<br>
&gt; ICANN and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions,<br>
&gt; such as bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of<br>
&gt; illicit pricing decisions, or criminal charges against an ICANN<br>
&gt; employee for embezzlement, etc.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *Virtualaw LLC*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *1155 F Street, NW*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *Suite 1050*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *Washington, DC 20004*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *202-559-8597/Direct*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *202-559-8750/Fax*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *202-255-6172/Cell***<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; **<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *Twitter: @VlawDC*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; */&quot;Luck is the residue of design&quot; -- Branch Rickey/*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; *From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
&gt; [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf<br>
&gt; Of *Mueller, Milton L<br>
&gt; *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM<br>
&gt; *To:* Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer<br>
&gt; *Cc:* <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
&gt; *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In the reflexive approach, you would ask &quot;what are the institutional<br>
&gt; mechanisms or procedures to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be<br>
&gt; addressed in an adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer<br>
&gt; tenable, however rare it may it?&quot; In the absolute rarest of rare cases<br>
&gt; that the US legislature or judiciary try to interfere with community<br>
&gt; decisions (the black swan scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this<br>
&gt; interference is contained/minimised? What are the institutional<br>
&gt; mechanisms or procedures for addressing the situation where the US (or<br>
&gt; any other) jurisdiction is no longer hospitable/ideal for the ICANN<br>
&gt; policymaking or IANA functions? These are the questions that we should<br>
&gt; be asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; MM: I think this is a good point. Even advocates of US jurisdiction or<br>
&gt; those who, like me, think there is just no better alternative and that<br>
&gt; the disruption and risks caused by a change are not worth the<br>
&gt; uncertain improvements, can easily agree that there should be<br>
&gt; procedures or plans for how to respond to interference by the U.S. government.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Dr. Milton L. Mueller<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Professor, School of Public Policy<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; No virus found in this message.<br>
&gt; Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a> &lt;<a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.avg.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date:<br>
&gt; 06/21/16<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
&gt;<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
-----<br>
No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Farzaneh </div>
</div></div></div>