<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 Saturday 25 June 2016 07:36 PM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00eb01d1ceea$d668da40$833a8ec0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Sorry
Parminder, but this is just not accurate. If I enter into a
contract that says “</span>Indian intellectual property law
will apply to the elements and objects of their contract and
not US?” the US courts will apply Indian law.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Paul. This is very interesting. <br>
<br>
Let me see if we are speaking about the same thing. Do you mean that<br>
<br>
(1) Rojadirecta, is a Spanish sports video streaming service, whose
business model was found perfectly legitimate by Spanish courts but
<a
href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-seizes-spanish-domain-name-that-had-already-been-declared-legal.shtml">whose
website was seized by the US Homeland Security's Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) division</a> on copyright violation
grounds. Now, lets say rojadirecta applies to ICANN for a closed or
private use gTLD .rojadirecta, can ICANN and rojadirecta agree that
Spanish copyrights law alone will apply to this new gTLD, and not US
laws, which after all makes sense bec rojadirecta is a Spanish
company with its primary business there? And if they do so agree and
put in the contract, the mentioned US agency will not be able to
seize the gTLD citing US copyrights law violation, and if they do
seize it, US courts will reverse the decision on the grounds that US
IP law does not apply to the gTLD? I very much doubt it could that
way, but extremely interested to hear your professional views on
this. <br>
<br>
(2) Similarly, if .ir ccTLD holders had put in a contract with ICANN
that on .ir only Iranian laws, of this and this kind, will apply,
and not US law, we would not even have the current litigation around
.ir that we have? (Then certainly all ccTLDs should get ICANN to
make such a contract with them!)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00eb01d1ceea$d668da40$833a8ec0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe it is different in India, where I
guess you are a lawyer – but not here in the US.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oh no, I am no lawyer, as I said in my last email. In fact I have no
kind of legal training at all. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00eb01d1ceea$d668da40$833a8ec0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul
Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span
style="color:#0563C1"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span
style="color:#0563C1"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">My
PGP Key: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</span></a>
</span><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
parminder [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction
debates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 25 June 2016 01:40 AM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">“</span>Courts
do not enforce plaintiff’s will, *they enforce the law of
the US*. A plaintiff's appeal is just the trigger or the
proximate cause. This is quite basic. Not sure why we are
discussing such basic factual stuff, and are confused about
them.” (Parminder)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I guess we discuss them because some
people are in fact confused about them. This is a good
example – US courts (like many others around the globe)
often apply the laws of foreign jurisdictions and not the
laws of the United States to disputes. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
The main job of US courts is to apply US law. US private law
would maintain that if two parties enter into a contract, they
must observe the condition of the contract, as far as it is
lawful (per the US law) and within the overall prior
application of public law to their relationship. Now, it is
possible that foreign laws may be sub parts of that
contractual arrangement, but any such thing is highly
subordinate to the application of relevant US laws, its public
laws as well as laws and canons of fairness, process etc vis a
vis private law. I am not a lawyer, and I can see that you
are. But even for me, the hierarchy and the clear distinction
are evident as just political common sense. It is completely
wrong to suggest that depending on what the parties may have
pre-decided foreign laws could take precedence over US laws in
the mind and acts of a US court. <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">So the basic answer is that the courts
adjudicate the laws as directed … by statute or by the
parties.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Public law of the US would apply as a prior category to any
issue.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> Here in the US, for example, we often
apply English law; we apply admiralty law of nations; and I
have personally participated as a representative in a
dispute in which the principal question involved the laws of
Germany. We apply these laws to disputes because the
contract between the parties so directs. If ICANN said in
its registry contracts (for example) that the suit would be
heard in US courts but that the law of Switzerland would
apply the US courts would honor that designation. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
As elements of a contract between the two parties - which can
in any case be written by the two party as they wish - *as
long as it is consistent and within the US law*, right. And as
said, US public law fully applies. Can ICANN and a registry
put in its contract that Indian intellectual property law will
apply to the elements and objects of their contract and not
US? Of course not. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN indeed is free to designate ANY
venue in the globe and ANY applicable substantive law it
wishes for its contractual disputes and the US courts would
enforce those contracts. Despite your contention otherwise,
the only aspect of US law that cannot be contractually
derogated from because of ICANN’s incorporation in
California is the California law regarding the formation and
operation of corporations.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
See my IP law example. Can ICANN, together with the
contracting registry, decide to immune itself and a gTLD from
US Intellectual property law ? Most DNS interferences in the
US take place because of IP related motivations. It will be
great if such a thing can be done. ICANN must really look into
it, and choose a developing country IP jurisdiction for all
its contracts, and thus gTLDs, which jurisdictions are the
lightest and least obtrusive IP wise. <br>
<br>
Your arguments continue to only think of private law, and I
think even in that area they do not hold. But do realise that
most current gTLD/ ccTLD disputes in the US are under public
law -- .xxx under competition law and .ir under terrorism
related laws. Are you saying that at the stage of the contract
ICANN could have immunised itself from these US laws by
choosing some other country’s laws as applicable to the
particular contracts and their subject, the gTLD or ccTLD?<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul
Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">My
PGP Key: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<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>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 24, 2016 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</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] premature jurisdiction
debates</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thursday 23 June 2016 02:00 AM, Greg
Shatan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Courts do not enforce plaintiff’s will, *they enforce the
law of the US*. A plaintiff's appeal is just the trigger or
the proximate cause. This is quite basic. Not sure why we
are discussing such basic factual stuff, and are confused
about them. Just because they help a case for sticking to US
jurisdiction!? Bec if somehow law can be proved to be
neutral, technical, kind of thing, then one can pursue the
argument that it doesnt matter which one is employed.<br>
<br>
Law is something that comes from the 'will of the people' of
a particular nation and is therefore legitimately specific
to it, and is illegitimate to apply to others. Tweaking the
famous call from US independence struggle "no taxation
without representation" to "no legislation without
representation". Taxation is after also a law, and its
enforcement. If freedom and self- representation was
important to the US centuries ago, and hopefully still is,
please give some consideration to the rest of the world too.
A humble appeal.<br>
<br>
A comment below on another regularly expressed confusion ...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
It is only useful to sue an organisation in a country whose
judicial authorities can enforce their decisions over that
organisation, as US courts can over ICANN as a US registered
body. It is vain to and meaningless to sue it elsewhere.
Most courts outside would even refuse to take on the case
pointing to the pointlessness of it....<br>
<br>
BTW, if it was the same about suing it wherever ICANN was,
why then not let it be in a non US location... Why is US and
the USians so keen to keep it in the US, so much so that the
jurisdiction issue even suddenly disappears from the agenda
of the workstream 2, only to make an reappearance bec Brazil
gov is too strong a party to be treated lightly :)<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:13 PM,
Rubens Kuhl <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" target="_blank">rubensk@nic.br</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Em 22 de jun de 2016,
à(s) 16:39:000, Phil Corwin <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a></a>>
escreveu:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">Rubens</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<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>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>