<div dir="ltr">Greg is correct. But ICANN also can be sued even in places where it does not have offices, if its actions are deemed to have sufficient effects in such jurisdictions. France, for example, has become notorious for allowing suits against foreign companies based on their internet services accessible in France -- but France is far from alone, and indeed our jurisdictional principles in the US maintain this same concept.<div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Mike Rodenbaugh</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">RODENBAUGH LAW</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com" target="_blank">http://rodenbaugh.com</a> </div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Lawsuits in US courts are not "interference of the United States," unless the United States is the plaintiff. In the US, courts are limited to hearing disputes between private parties. The US courts do not (as in some jurisdictions) have any proactive, prosecutorial or investigative powers. (In limited circumstances, in the context of an actual litigation, the court can appoint experts, but that's about as far as that goes.) </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The cases Rubens cites are disputes between private parties or between a private party and ICANN. The US court is the forum for those disputes. This is not "interference of the United States."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If ICANN were located in another jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's courts would be hearing these disputes. Notably, ICANN is subject to being sued in other countries where it has offices, so there are already alternatives if plaintiffs want to find a different venue in which to seek redress. While this is a possibility, I believe all plaintiffs that have sued ICANN have done so in the US. This may say something about the appeal of the US as a jurisdiction for resolving disputes.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rubens Kuhl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" target="_blank">rubensk@nic.br</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Em 22 de jun de 2016, à(s) 16:39:000, Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>> escreveu:</div><br><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">So long as we have a common understanding of what would constitute “interference by the U.S. government” (of which there has been little to none since ICANN’s inception, with the possible exception of the delay in .xxx delegation to the root). I presume you are advocating deciding upon a process to address such an occurrence, rather than making a decision now about an alternate jurisdiction for a situation that may never arise, or occur decades from now.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I’ll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include interference in ICANN’s policymaking process (outside of advocacy within the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root zone, through methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I don’t think it should include private litigation brought against ICANN and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions, such as bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of illicit pricing decisions, or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div></span><div>There is already litigation in California and federal courts that would compel changes in the root zone, like the litigation against the ccTLDs of Syria and Iran, or the current .africa litigation... so this interference of the US legal system within ICANN policy making process is already happening in some cases or imminent in others. </div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></font></span></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">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></blockquote></div><br></div>
<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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>