<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 Thursday 23 June 2016 02:50 AM,
farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvBN9xAjuNxvj_EnUP7JLfNGK1jgfSkGeN43Ypxvhb=HeQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">There is a difference between the possibility of
interference and interference.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is another interesting side to this.... Why transition from
US's oversight over ICANN is considered such a good thing, now being
celebrated so much to make it look as if it was always considered
necessary. I have been into this discussion for long, and whenever
some of us pointed to the role of NTIA, we used to hear the same
argument, show us one instance when NTIA interfered with ICANN's
decision. Since they never interfered, their oversight role is no
problem. Nothing had changed now, there hasnt suddenly been some
instance of NTIA interference, right! It is still only a
possibility, but now, since US is already doing it, we seem to think
that this is the best thing to happen to the ICANN world. <br>
<br>
Why when working just on the 'possibility' of NTIA's wrongful
interference, and ensuring against it, we are so celebrating of the
IANA transition, we do not want to pursue the 'possibility' of
jurisdictional incursion of the US state, of which we want a prior
proof - as was till now also asked for with regard to NTIA
oversight role. <br>
<br>
We make our institutional arrangements not only in response to
actually occurred issues but also taking into account logically
strong possibilities. I have heard no response either to the
possibility<br>
<br>
(1) of what happens if the US court reverses ICANN decision in
.africa and other gtld related cases, like .xxx (how can one say
that this is simply not possible?)<br>
<br>
(2) of US authorities having a intellectual property related issue
(as per US law) with a closed gTLD owning foreign company, why
would they not direct their domain removal order now to ICANN - the
same order, of which multiple known cases exist, which used to go to
US based registries earlier (rojadirecta is a famous case, what if
rojadirecta was to take a gTLD and still be doing sports event
steaming business, and then a Us agency find the same problem with
it that they earlier did?) <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvBN9xAjuNxvj_EnUP7JLfNGK1jgfSkGeN43Ypxvhb=HeQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"> I agree that up until now there was no
interference and that US Department of Justice opposing might
have helped too and I do agree that there are other ways to
limit such interferences even by referring to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act ( which I think ICANN did in its
argument). But we cannot deny that US jurisdiction gives the
possibility of interference (might be unsuccessful and might not
work) especially in the case of Iran.
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b style="font-style:italic">"</b><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><i>If ICANN were
located in another jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's
courts would be hearing these disputes. "</i> : </b>the
Plaintiff used and is using </span><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 in its
arguments. Are there Acts similar to TRIA in other
countries? If yes then the statement is correct. If not then
we might want to look at what can be done to avoid disputes
similar to Iran's case. </font></div>
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Just to clarify I am of
the opinion that the issue of jurisdiction has been
championed by states while they are not providing many good
reasons for it. It might be that there are not many real
good reasons for it. We just have to solve some
complications and we are good to go. But we have to address
the complications. </font></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 22 June 2016 at 22:53, Greg Shatan <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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">In <u>Weinstein
v. Islamic Republic of Iran</u>, the plaintiffs
attempted to enforce the judgment by seizing the .ir
TLD, claiming that it was an asset of Iran. The US
Department of Justice filed a brief opposing the
seizure, stating that a TLD is not property or an asset,
and that the TLD was beyond the reach of the US law
governing seizure of certain foreign assets. (ICANN
submitted similar arguments to the court.) The federal
judge hearing the case ruled against this attempt,
siding with ICANN and DOJ. Is this what you are calling
U.S. "interference"? Would it have been better if DOJ
had not filed a brief?</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As Phil points
out, the case is currently on appeal to the D.C.
Circuit. It was argued but has not yet been decided.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</font></span></div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:36
PM, farzaneh badii <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">Hi Rubens</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think the interference in .ir and
Syria case is quite different from .africa. ,
.In .ir case the claimant had a judgment
against iran which it had obtained through the
us courts relying on US laws and wanted to
enforce the judgement through attaching .ir to
the claimant. I call that interference. In
.africa two competing organizations have a
dispute over the delegation of .africa. I am not
sure if we can compare the two.</p>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 22 Jun 2016 22:14,
"Rubens Kuhl" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br"
target="_blank">rubensk@nic.br</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Phil,<br>
<br>
I can´t fully follow your segmentation<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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,<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
why not? Who is going to hear the case set
liabilities and eventually
compensation????<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
or criminal charges against an ICANN
employee for embezzlement, etc.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<br>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
Virtualaw LLC<br>
1155 F Street, NW<br>
Suite 1050<br>
Washington, DC 20004<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-559-8597"
value="+12025598597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-559-8750"
value="+12025598750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-255-6172"
value="+12022556172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/Cell<br>
<br>
Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
<br>
"Luck is the residue of design" --
Branch Rickey<br>
<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L<br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM<br>
To: Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer<br>
Cc: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] premature
jurisdiction debates<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
MM: I think this is a good point. Even
advocates of US jurisdiction or those
who, like me, think there is just no
better alternative and that the
disruption and risks caused by a change
are not worth the uncertain
improvements, can easily agree that
there should be procedures or plans for
how to respond to interference by the
U.S. government.<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Milton L. Mueller<br>
Professor, School of Public Policy<br>
Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.avg.com">http://www.avg.com</a></a>><br>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database:
4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Farzaneh
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>