<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear John.</div><div>Dear Parminder,</div><div>It is difficult for me to conclude on any solution between the lines of your discussion.</div><div>Could any of you kindly give a resume of the exchanged views.</div><div>We need to look for some compromise solution knowing that some hard liners like x and y insist to impose their objections to send Q4.I continue to object to all questions until all 4 are agreed</div><div>Nothing is agreed untill everything is agreed</div><div>this is a Global multistakholder Group discussion and NOT North American Sub-Region multistakholder Group dominated by certain individuals</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss <span></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-12-22 13:06 GMT+01:00 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 20 December 2016 08:37 PM,
John Laprise wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-6062255183317377725__MailEndCompose"><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">“</span></a><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">To
turn ones face away and say, nothing can be done here, to
evolve our democratic international systems, is to vote
for a status quo which serves some, but not others.</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">”</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rather,
it is an acknowledgement of reality. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Apologies for appearing to be flippant, but isnt that what every
status quo-ist says. <br><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rule
of law is neither globally strong nor evenly distributed.
I can imagine a world in which the way forward you
describe is plausible but, regrettably, it is not the one
we live in. Other systems need strengthening and in some
cases even existence before the way forward is open. It</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">’</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">s
not a vote for the status quo but a recognition of path
dependency. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I am not asking for a violent deviation from the path - both options
that I propose, a new international law and immunity under existing
US Act carries forward the path-dependency, and completely safeguard
the existing structures and processes of ICANN, the system I think
you allude to as requiring strengthening. What I propose in fact
further strengthens it, to a considerable extent. The ICANN system's
current jurisdictional oversight by a single country is its biggest
weak point in terms of international legitimacy. ( A point,
unfortunately USians here seem not able to see and sympathise with.)
Imagine an ICANN with immunity from US jurisdiction; how much
legitimacy, and thus strength, it adds to the system.<span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Thanks
for the back rounder Parminder. It was, along with some
parallel research, quite helpful.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Thanks John, you are welcome. <br><span>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
The problem remains however that there is no analogous
organization to ICANN merely in terms of its contractual
authority.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Firstly, if we are hoping that a fully-developed, well-rounded
solution, with everything fully covered by enough exact precedents,
to this complex but very genuine problem, will simply one day drop
in our laps, I assure you that this is not going to happen. We have
to work for it, join the dots, take risks, make innovations, and so
on. The point is, who is losing and gaining what from the present
dispensation, and who is willing to do what is required to do. <br>
<br>
Next, I see that organisations like International Fertilizer and
Development Centre, which we cited as an example of an NPO given
jurisdictional immunity, also does run many projects worldwide. Any
such project would require use of a legal status, entering
contracts, and so on.... We just need to look into it. But if we
close our eyes, and simply refuse to explore options, we are not
going to get anywhere. I am not saying this example will be an exact
fit for our requirement, but we need to see what is possible, and
innovate and evolve over it. <br><span>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
I</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">’</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">d
also add that many of the benefits of the act are at the
discretion of the US Secretary of State and can be
revoked.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Yes, which is why immunity under US Act is less sustainable option
than international law based immunity. But still better than the
present condition. In the<a href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf" target="_blank">
recent civil society statement on jurisdiction</a>, we also
suggested a method whereby any such withdrawal of immunity can be
made difficult/ ineffectual (see option 3 in the end). <br><span>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
The proposed jurisdictional immunity would also require
all governments to sign off on such status, given ICANN</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">’</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">s
reach.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I dont see why so. Only US gov needs to agree. <br><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I
know that there is a significant literature on
international compacts and law. Given the often decades
long time frames for the passage and acceptance of such
law, the Internet as we know it is unlikely to exist by
the time it comes into force. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
These are weak excuses. It can be done in 6 months. But in any case,
if it satisfies those who want to move towards international
jurisdiction, what do you lose in allowing to set in motion the
process, esp if you think it would take forever to do anything. Let
those who want have it. In the interim, status quo would stay.<span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">To
your question about why we do not discuss jurisdictional
immunity under US law: it is because the domestic
political reality of the situation makes such an
eventuality so remote as to be hypothetical. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
The same domestic situation makes the continuation of ICANN under US
jurisdiction even less tenable. <br>
<br>
This brings me to a very important point: the job of CCWG, working
on behalf of the global community, is not to second guess what US
gov will accept or not (unfortunately, that is what it has mostly
done). If this was its real task, we as well may let US gov do what
it may, instead of providing them the cover of legitimacy of the
supposed will of the so called 'global community' which is what this
process does. Our job is to recommend what we think in is best
global interest, and is ordinarily plausible to do. This is what our
job is, and we must just do that. Let US gov do its job - accept our
recs or not. That burden is upon them - let s not take up their
burden. This aspect of the work of the "community" groups involved
in the transition process has always greatly bothered me. We must
have clarity about - on whose behalf are we working (i think, for
the global community, but you can clarify) and what our recs must be
based on (I think, on our understanding of what is best for the
global community, and not what we think US gov likes and would agree
to, and what not, but again you can clarify)<span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">The
described quest is admirable but IMO is a non-starter.
Conditions do not exist presently to make it a possible.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
We are part of once in decades constitutional process about ICANN's
structures. If it is not now, it is never. <br><div><div class="h5">
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Best regards, <u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif;font-size:16pt">John Laprise, Ph.D.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Consulting Scholar<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:"Garamond",serif"></span></span><a class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jplaprise/</a><span></span><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<span></span>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> parminder
[<a class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">mailto:parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 20, 2016 2:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Laprise <a class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com" target="_blank"><jlaprise@gmail.com></a>;
<a class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-<wbr>community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed
Questions and Poll Results<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday 19 December 2016 08:14 PM, John
Laprise wrote:<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">Possibilities of
jurisdictional immunity? Could you please provide examples
of organizations that enjoy such.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
John<br>
The most well known case of jurisdictional immunity is of
course for organisations incorporated under international law.
Unlike what has been argued here variously, although
international law has to be made by governments through
treaties etc that says nothing about the actual governance
structure of the concerned organisation, ICANN in this case.
International law can, to take an extreme case, hand over
complete governance of a body created/ incorporated under
international law to you and me... Nothing circumscribes how
international law is written as long as all countries agree to
it. It is entirely possible, and I think extremely plausible,
that they would agree to write in such law the exact
governance structure of ICANN as it is at present. Right now
too, ICANN exists by and under the strength of its law of
incorporation which is US law. In the scenario I present, it
would just be international law instead of US law. Yes, there
are matters to worked out in this regard, but if democracy and
self-determination of all people, equally, is of any
importance at all, we can go through the process, including
doing the needed innovations as needed. The current
international system was not handed over to us by God, it was
evolved by people like us, who responded appropriately to
newer and newer global challenges, as the one that faces us
now. To turn ones face away and say, nothing can be done here,
to evolve our democratic international systems, is to vote for
a status quo which serves some, but not others. And these are
the others that are protesting here, and seeking appropriate
change. It is a political issue, lets not treat it as a
technical issue, of what is argued to be difficult or too
"troublesome" to pursue. <br>
<br>
Next, even without going the international law route, as has
been said many times earlier here, US law allows even non
profits to be given jurisdictional immunity. The concerned law
is the <u><span style="color:navy"><a href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf" target="_blank">United
States International Organisations Immunities Act</a></span></u>
. And an example of a US non-profit being given jurisdiction
immunity under it is<em><span style="font-size:10pt;font-style:normal"> International
Fertilizer and Development Center. </span></em>This has
been discussed in a report commissioned by ICANN itself which
can be found at <a href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/en/<wbr>psc/corell-24aug06.html</a>
. <br>
<br>
I have been unable to understand why can we not agree to even
jurisdictional immunity under existing US law, which keeps
ICANN in the US, preserves its existing structures, and does
go considerable way to address the concerns about those who
are concerned about application of US public law on ICANN, and
what it may mean for its global governance work. <br>
<br>
The argument is advanced that this may affect the operation of
the newly instituted community accountability mechanism. I
dont think this is not true. This mechanism is a matter of
internal ICANN governance system, which is a 'private'
arrangement with choice of law available to it. It simply has
to be put in ICANN bylaws that ICANN governance processes will
be subject to adjudication by Californian courts as present.
That should do. Of course the mentioned International
Fertilizer and Development Centre also must be existing with
some governance systems, that admit of external adjudication,
even as it enjoys the benefit of jurisdictional immunity from
US public laws. Such immunity always only pertains to the
policy and such international core activities of the concerned
organisation, and associated matters. It would not, for
instance, extend to actual crime being committed by its
personnel on its premises. All such matters of various
distinctions get taken care of when we enter the actual
processes of such immunities etc. Right now, the issue is only
to decide to go down the route, or not.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Best regards, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif;font-size:16pt">John Laprise, Ph.D.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Consulting Scholar</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:"Garamond",serif"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jplaprise/</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-<wbr>community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-<wbr>community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 19, 2016 7:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-<wbr>community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed
Questions and Poll Results</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 17 December 2016 12:40 AM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre>SNIP <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>John Laprise's wording was much, much better: <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>"What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"<u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
This formulation does not include possibilities of
jurisdictional immunity. <br>
<br>
Something like <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>"What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, <b><i>or providing possible jurisdictional immunity,</i></b> particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"<u></u><u></u></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
would be better.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre> <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>