<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>On Monday 27 June 2016 02:58 PM,
Jordan Carter wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEO10gj87FGTg_g1hD4xvfm5e+K6ut8NjxHHiGFVYHWLzAi+3w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><tt>snip</tt></blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEO10gj87FGTg_g1hD4xvfm5e+K6ut8NjxHHiGFVYHWLzAi+3w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tt><br>
</tt><tt> Sorry, forgot to re state the questions. This also
goes with the approach proposed by Pedro that we look first
at scenarios and their implications on ICANN substantive
policy remits. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt><tt> (1) What is ICANN's plan to do if it gets adverse US
court judgements in .xxx and .africa cases (even .ir is
still in the courts)? </tt></div>
</blockquote>
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt>What do you mean by adverse? The courts I assume would
rule against Icann if it failed to follow its own process
effectively but would not seek to impose their judgement on
substantive questions.</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>That exactly is the misunderstanding that I see in most
positions put forward here. The assumption that a US court will
only judge ICANN's acts as per ICANN's own processes/ bylaws, but
not apply, and enforce, the myriad public laws of the US on ICANN.
This is simply not true. For instance, the .xxx gTLD is under
dispute in a US court not for any procedural problems in its
delegation but for allegedly being in violation of US anti-trust
laws, which is a public law, with no choice for any US
organisation to not be subject to it. Similarly, .ir is being
contested under another set of public laws . All these public laws
necessarily apply to everything ICANN does. With 100s if not
thousands of new gTLDs, being taken by companies active in
practically every possible social/ economic sector, such DNS
related cases invoking US public laws of various kinds can only
increase exponentially. How can we not be prepared for them?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>It of course is possible for US through a domestic
legislation give ICANN immunity from applications of these laws,
and that may be one option. However, it is too significant a
issue, and imminent problem, to be ignored.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEO10gj87FGTg_g1hD4xvfm5e+K6ut8NjxHHiGFVYHWLzAi+3w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><tt>But, see above about not being a lawyer. </tt><tt><br>
</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>I myself am stumbling to find my way through all this :) .
Others who are lawyers can respond if what I say is not correct,
and also to the two questions to which you have responded (thank
you for that). In fact, we should ask for legal advice, which had
generously been made available to this group, with the regard to
the 2-3 scenarios that I have presented. Although these may be the
same lawyers who had earlier advised that ICANN should stay in the
US jurisdiction, it will still be very useful to hear what they
have to specifically say on the matter of application of US public
laws to ICANN's DNS policy making, and of powers of its executive
agencies, about which I have presented scenarios. I mean
specifically respond to the presented scenarios. This discussion
will be much more informed after we have heard authoritative legal
opinion.</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEO10gj87FGTg_g1hD4xvfm5e+K6ut8NjxHHiGFVYHWLzAi+3w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><tt>snip</tt><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt>This isn't a question per se. But whatever the
jurisdiction, the only party responsible for making sure Icann
policy frameworks are well written and legally robust, and
that Icann follows them, is Icann. To the extent it fails in
those things it invites courts of any sort to be involved.</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>As discussed above, that is not the only reason courts may
get involved, as the .xxx and .ir cases show. However well ICANN
writes its policy framework (unless it already anticipates and
works in the US legal requirement into it, in which case we have
the same problem, through a different route, of one country's law
determining global DNS policy) it does not save it from US courts
hauling it up wrt judging them for compliance to numerous US
public laws. </tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEO10gj87FGTg_g1hD4xvfm5e+K6ut8NjxHHiGFVYHWLzAi+3w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><tt> </tt></div>
<tt>snio</tt>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tt>Also, please see the
hypothetical case in my last email, if rojadirecta takes
.rojadirecta as a closed gTLD, and after some time, as they
did once earlier through its US based registry, US
authorities want to seize the .rojadirecta, which can now
only be done at the root file level, and for that sends a
order to ICANN, what would ICANN do? Again, necessary to
know while we are in middle of jurisdiction decision</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt>I don't know. I'm not a gtld person per se. Has the US
ever successfully 'siezed' a TLD? Wouldn't the relevant
registry keep operating anyway and the technical community
simply 'route around the damage' if Icann or the root zone
operator complied with US attempts?</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>No, they have not seized a tld. US's major seizure
operations have been intellectual property law violation motivated
and have been aimed at commercial companies which hitherto only
had second level domain names. These have often been seized by
US gov through orders to US based registries, who have immediately
complied (they have no option). Like rojadirecta.com was seized
through a notice to .com registry. My question is, if rojadirecta
were to now take .rojadirecta gTLD and operate its business
through it, and US gov wants to stop it as it wanted to earlier,
there is little doubt that they will now send an enforcement
notice to ICANN to remove the gTLD from the root, the only way it
can be stopped, and ICANN has to comply. Again, happy to hear the
legal view on this.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>parminder </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEO10gj87FGTg_g1hD4xvfm5e+K6ut8NjxHHiGFVYHWLzAi+3w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt>Jordan </tt></div>
<div><tt><span></span></tt><tt> </tt></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt><tt> Responses to these scenarios and their stated
implications will be appreciated.. parminder </tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"><tt> <br>
best, parminder <br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<div><tt>On Sunday 26 June 2016 04:31 PM, Jordan Carter
wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><tt>Par minder, </tt>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>I see a distinction which you may not, but it
might help clarify the points at debate.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>I see two layers here, for want of a better
term. One is the actual work of ICANN's policy
making, contract development and so on. That's
being done in a fashion supported by a corporation
(ICANN the legal entity).</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>The legal environment in which ICANN the
corporation exists is California, USA.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>The first, the set of activities that ICANN
actually does, are location agnostic. They could
happen anywhere, in any jurisdiction. As long as
that jurisdiction allowed the legal entity to
organise itself as it saw fit, more or less, it'd be
fine.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>The second, the legal environment, has to be
somewhere. I take it from Wolfgang's comments and my
own understanding, and actually from this email from
you, that there's no "International Law" environment
that could take the place of a national jurisdiction
in which ICANN could base itself, unless such an
international legal basis was created.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>For me, personally, the important point is that
ICANN related decisions are made within the ICANN
system. I am not fussed about the jurisdiction in
which the corporation exists as a practical matter
so long as that overall point is maintained.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>Since it would take years or decades to
establish an international law basis under which
ICANN could operate, even if it was at all possible,
there needs to be *some* jurisdiction used. </tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>California seems fit for purpose in the sense
that it has been able to accommodate the WS1 and
Stewardship Transition frameworks agreed by the
community. The costs of doing all that again to
move jurisdiction should, I think, only be
entertained if there other currently undisclosed
problems with CA, and benefits in another
jurisdiction, that outweigh the costs of change.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>It's not clear to me that there are such
advantages available anywhere given the flexibility
of the CA framework. Doesn't mean they don't exist
tho, just that I don't see them :-)</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>If this is a matter of politics per se, then I
guess I just don't identify with that as
significant. ICANN could be incorporated as a non
profit in New Zealand, or India, or the United
States -- I really don't mind. As long as the rule
of law was clear, the courts were available and
competent, and the rules allowed the organisation to
be what it needs to be -- why does the particular
nationality of the entity in its legal reality
matter?</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>best</tt></div>
<div><tt>Jordan</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>I think the following points are
uncontroversial</tt></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><tt><br>
</tt>
<div class="gmail_quote"><tt>On 26 June 2016 at 12:16,
parminder </tt><tt><span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','parminder@itforchange.net');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>></span></tt><tt>
wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tt><span> <br>
<br>
<div>On Sunday 26 June 2016 03:27 PM, Phil
Corwin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
style="line-height:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto"> There is no
international corporate law. Therefore
there is no means by which ICANN can be
organized as a non-profit entity under
international law but for a treaty
arrangement such as that for the Red
Cross. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></tt><tt> Yes, it will be incorporated
under special international law created for that
purpose.</tt><tt><span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
style="line-height:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto">How long
would that take,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></tt><tt> First we have to just decide to
do it (that is all to be done at this stage -
which can be done within weeks or a few months
of discussion), then let it take the needed time
as long as everyone is working in good faith...
It can even be done in 6-12 months, a simple
basic text that incorporates existing ICANN
functions and processes. There is a clear
incentive for those who wants things changed vis
a vis US jurisdiction to go through the process
fast, and for those preferring the status quo to
keep the text short and as far as possible
making an exact replica of present ICANN at the
international level. Once we agree on these
principles, things can move really fast. In the
interim, of course the status quo of US
jurisdiction remains, and so there is no loss.</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
style="line-height:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto"><tt> what would
that cost,</tt></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt> what kind of costs?</tt><tt><span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
style="line-height:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto"> and what is
the justification?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></tt><tt> This brings us to the square
one of this discussion, while I thought you/ we
were moving forward. The simplest statement of
the justification is: a global Internet cannot
be run by US law [no legislation (or
adjudication) without representation]. For
implications of this justification, you may try
to answer the questions that I just asked Nigel
(and had earlier also asked you).</tt><tt><span><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font></span></tt>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
style="line-height:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto"> <tt><br
style="display:initial">
</tt> </div>
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto"><tt>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> Virtualaw LLC</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> 1155 F Street, NW</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> Suite 1050</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> Washington, DC 20004</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> 202-559-8597/Direct</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> 202-559-8750/Fax</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> 202-255-6172/Cell</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt><tt> Twitter: @VlawDC</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt><tt> "Luck is the residue of
design." -- Branch Rickey</tt></div>
</div>
<div>
<table
style="border-spacing:0px;display:table;background-color:white"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"
style="padding:initial;font-size:initial;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div>
<div><tt><b>From:</b></tt><tt><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a></a></tt></div>
<div><tt><b>Sent:</b></tt><tt>June
26, 2016 12:27 PM</tt></div>
<div><tt><b>To:</b></tt><tt><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','parminder@itforchange.net');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a></tt><tt>;
</tt><tt><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','asoto@ibero-americano.org');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org">asoto@ibero-americano.org</a></a></tt><tt>;
</tt><tt><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></a></tt><tt>;
</tt><tt><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a></tt></div>
<div><tt><b>Subject:</b></tt><tt>Re:
[CCWG-ACCT] premature
jurisdiction debates</tt></div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="border-style:solid none
none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(186,188,209);display:block;padding:initial;font-size:initial;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</div>
<tt><br>
</tt> </div>
</div>
<tt><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:10pt">
<div>P:<br>
There is something called
international law..... Like we are
an international community working
on an international issue, there is
also international law.<br>
<br>
W:<br>
I am always perplexed that we have
the same discussion again and again.
The subject of international law is
the state, represented by its
government. Governments negotiate
treaties. The primary source of
international law is the Charter of
the United Nations. The seven
principles there - including
sovereign equality of states - are
seen as jus cogens. The rules for
treaties are laid down in the the
Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. Governments can delegate
some rights - via an international
treaty - to an intergovernmental
organisation, as UNESCO, ITU and
others.Such organizations become a
subject sui generis under
international law and can negotiate
treaties with their host countries.
Governments can also create
international courts - as the
International court of justice in
The Hague or the Rome Statute. But
in case of a conflict, the
conflicting parties are governments,
not private legal or natural
persons. <br>
<br>
This is rather different from what
we have with ICANN. ICANN is a
non-for profit private corporations
which operates n the public
interest. In its Articles of
Incorporation ICANN makes clear that
in operates within the framework of
international law. That means ICANN
respect the national sovereignty of
states, does not interfere into
internal affairs of other countries
etc. But ICANN is not a subject
under international law. Governments
participate in ICANN in an advisory
role. The role is specified in the
bylaws. <br>
<br>
If Parminder proposes an
intergovernmental organizations for
the governance of the Internet (or
an intergovernmental framework
convention for the domain name
system) he should say so.
Theoretically this is an option.
Governments are free to negotiate
anything as long as they find
negotiation partners. It took 25
years to negotiate the 3rd Law of th
Sea Convention. It took more than 20
years to negotiate the Rome Treaty.
An the negotiations for a treaty on
climate change started in the early
1990s. At this stage I do not see
any intention of governments to
enter into a new intergovernmental
codification conference to negotiate
an Internet treaty. <br>
<br>
BTW, individuals can start a case
against private corporations if
those corporations violate their
rights they have in the country
where they live. The case Schrems
vs. Facebook is a good example.
Facebook is incorporated in the US
but does business in Europe. The
European Court of Justice decided
that Facebook has to respect the
rights of privacy of Mr. Schrems, a
citizen of Austria. <br>
<br>
Hope this helps to end this useless
debate. <br>
<br>
Wolfgang<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </div>
</div>
</div>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>
_______________________________________________</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><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></tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
</div>
<tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br clear="all">
</tt>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<tt> -- </tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><tt>Jordan Carter
</tt>
<div><tt>Wellington, New Zealand</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<div><tt>+64 21 442 649 </tt></div>
<div><tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@jordancarter.org.nz');"
target="_blank">jordan@jordancarter.org.nz</a></tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<tt><br>
</tt>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<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>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </div>
</blockquote>
<div><tt> </tt></div>
<div><tt> </tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt> </tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt> </tt></div>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>-- </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Jordan Carter</tt>
<div><tt>Wellington, New Zealand</tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<div><tt>+64 21 442 649 </tt></div>
<div><tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz" target="_blank">jordan@jordancarter.org.nz</a></tt></div>
<div><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<tt><br>
</tt>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>