<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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";}
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">With respect, Marilyn, I would not support the creation of such a stand-alone jurisdiction CCWG as it would only elevate, extend and further inflame a debate
that cannot end in consensus agreement, as there is a fundamental incompatibility between altering ICANN’s status as California non-profit and effectively exercising the empowered community accountability powers that accompanied the IANA transition and were
designed to operate within that specific legal framework. We don’t need global legal expertise to understand that basic point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/Cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Marilyn Cade<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 24, 2016 12:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sam Lanfranco; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I support Sam's suggestion that a separate CCWG [or something] address the core issue of jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I spent 3 years and many hours [many, many hours] with a reflection of a deputy SecGen of the UN during the President's Strategy Working Group. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I had access to international legal advice. So, it did not matter what I "thought". It mattered what was actually an international legal perspective. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I think we need to understand that opinions matter but this is a highly legal issue and we cannot short cut it by taking opinions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I support Sam's suggestion. Such a sub group or new group could then advise into the CCWG. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">BUT, really global legal expertise matters here. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">M<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Sam
Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net">sam@lanfranco.net</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 24, 2016 10:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I may be an isolated outlier here with regard to how to approach the core issue of jurisdiction within this CCWG, but I will state
my view in as few words as possible. Jurisdiction will remain a major issue whether this CCWG includes, or excludes, jurisdiction as a question on its questionnaire, and whether or not it tries to address the issue of jurisdiction within this CCWG’s deliberations.
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">In many ways ICANN is a new form hybrid organization, with its multistakeholder policy making process, and with its global DNS policy remit. The jurisdiction issues run both
wide and deep, and are not issues of simply finding the right “residence” for ICANN. They are about how do we (all stakeholders including governments) figure out how to handle the jurisdiction related issues posed by ICANN’s multistakeholder policy making
structures, and its global DNS policy remit. What lessons can we drawn on from experience, and what needs to be cut from whole cloth (i.e., innovated)?</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">While I have no objections to jurisdiction being addressed inside this Accountability CCWG, I do not see this CCWG as an adequate venue for such an important issue. The work
required to address it properly means that such a dialogue should take place in a venue (CCWG, whatever) devoted specifically to the jurisdiction issue. This CCWG could start the process by recognizing that, stating that the issue warrants its own CCWG (or
whatever), and pressing for rapid movement in that direction. I could elaborate on each of the above points but I hope that the message is pretty clear. The rationale for such an approach almost self-evident.
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/csih</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">On 12/24/2016 9:53 AM, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Dear CCWG-colleagues,</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">After reading some comments in this email thread, I must admit to be really disappointed.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
Some of our colleagues in the CCWG seem to have forgotten - perhaps on purpose - that the topic of jurisdiction was allocated to WS2 as a result of a postponement, since the majority of this group thought it was not appropriate to deal with it in the pre-transition
period due to time constraints. My government was not in favor of postponing the discussion on jurisdiction, as we consider it was – and remains – a fundamental aspect of a new ICANN truly governed by the multistakeholder community without any pre-conditions,
but in respect to the viewpoint of the other colleagues, we agreed to move it to WS2.
<br>
<br>
Now that time has come to properly deal with this topic, it is quite frustrating to notice that some participants insist on limiting and/or procrastinating this debate, including by using the absurd argument that any discussion around jurisdiction cannot put
into question any aspect already decided in WS1, which is embedded in the California law. We cannot see good faith in that kind of circular argument.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">In our view, the discussion around
the inclusion or exclusion of Q.4 shows quite clearly that some of those who have fiercely objected to any jurisdiction debate during WS1 are maintaining their objection in WS2 as well. On that particular topic (Q.4) we concur with the view that upon deciding
on institutional arrangements we should not only consider already occurred cases but also take into account logically strong possibilities. The responses to the questionnaire should thus help us to deal with all possibilities associate to jurisdiction. In
case any unsubstantiated opinion will be received, it should be summarily discarded.
<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">From the various jurisdiction calls it became quite evident that a substantial part of the subgroup - mainly non-US
- has great interest in examining and debating ways through which we can make sure that any issue associated to jurisdiction be addressed in a way compatible with the company's international remit of coordinating Internet public identifiers. In that context,
I would like to highlight my governmentīs understanding that although the proposed questionnaire under discussion may provide us with some relevant factual information, it does not in any way cover all aspects of interest. We would like to refer, for example,
to the list of issues compiled by Kavouss Arasteh as per his 13 December 2016 e-mail. We would also refer to questions that have continuously been asked by Parminder, apparently without any satisfactory answer. Those issues and questions include, for example,
dispute settlement related topics, which demonstrates, in our view, that jurisdiction cannot be seen purely from businessesī viewpoint. As someone has stated, we also need to look at the relationship between ICANN and third parties and adequately consider
non-contracted Parties that might be affected by ICANNīs acts and/or omissions. </span>
<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">From the perspective of the Brazilian government, the topics raised by Kavouss, Parminder and others are issues of particular
interest which, needless to say, will not be adequately addressed through the mere analysis of the answers provided to the questionnaire, whether it includes Q.4 or not.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> My government has expressed its interest in pursuing discussion on jurisdiction through those angles many times – both during the IANA transition process and well before
that. Other governments have done the same, as well as a sound number of civil society organizations around the globe. The "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", while calling for the internationalization of ICANN, clearly expresses this as well. Let me
emphasize, by the way, that the NETmundial Statement calls for ICANNīs internationalization and not for it to become an intergovernmental organization. Those are two different notions that should not be confounded.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
If this subgroup fails to deal with the multidimensional issues associated to jurisdiction properly , it may be applauded by some segments , but it will not contribute to putting in place a framework that will ensure the shared goal of making ICANN a legitimate
entity in the eyes of all stakeholders, including governments. To achieve that, no issues should be discarded as "non important" or "not yet verified". While preserving the essence of what was achieved in WS1, innovative thinking, including on the part of
persons with legal expertise, will be needed. Is it worth to wipe an important debate under the carpet just to comfort one or a few stakeholder groups while discontenting others? What kind of legitimacy is such a biased and limited exercise likely to have
within the international community? .<br>
<br>
It is time the subgroup - including the coChairs - make a honest assessment of the various viewpoints related to ICANN's jurisdiction and conduct the debate as openly as possible in order to address all the concerns and interests behind it. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Kind regards,</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Division of Information Society</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Brazil</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">T: +55 61 2030-6609</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <rest deleted>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>