<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 01:40 AM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:03ac01d1ce54$7d54a8d0$77fdfa70$@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.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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">“</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. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:03ac01d1ce54$7d54a8d0$77fdfa70$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> So the basic answer is that the courts
adjudicate the laws as directed … by statute or by the
parties.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Public law of the US would apply as a prior category to any issue.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:03ac01d1ce54$7d54a8d0$77fdfa70$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:03ac01d1ce54$7d54a8d0$77fdfa70$@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">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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:03ac01d1ce54$7d54a8d0$77fdfa70$@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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<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">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 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"><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. <o:p></o:p></span></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>
<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.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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, <o:p></o:p></span></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>
<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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></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-right:0in">
<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"
target="_blank"><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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">Rubens<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></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>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>