<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On Wednesday 28 December 2016 08:44 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E22458930@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">"<span style="font-family: Verdana;">Let
me emphasize, by the way, that the NETmundial Statement calls
for ICANN´s internationalization and not for it to become an
intergovernmental organization. Those are two different
notions that should not be confounded."</span>
<div><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana">Can you please cite any example of an
"internationalized" organization that is not an IGO and, if
such example(s) exists, cite the jurisdiction in which it is
organized and whose laws it is subject to. Thank you.<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Being international organisation is about law of incorporation
and/or applicable jurisdiction, inter-governmental organisation is
about its governance form, as being consisting of governments. Most
international organisations are intergov but that is not at all
necessary.<br>
<br>
Red Cross is an international organisational, which though not
created under Swiss law and not international law is supported and
mandated by international law. It has been given special immunities
and privileges by the Swiss gov. <br>
<br>
International Fertilizer Development Centre calls itself
international organisation, and US law calls it as international
organisation, and even though continuing to be incorporated as an US
non profit, has immunities under US law.<br>
<br>
Like these, there are many others.<br>
<br>
In any case, there is no bar on countries getting together to make
international law creating or re-mandating an organisation whose
governance structure is whatever that international law says it to
be. Such a treaty can mandate an international ICANN, with exactly
the same governance structure as it currently has, including new
accountability mechanisms. In this case while ICANN would indeed be
international (law of incorporation, and applicable jurisdiction) it
wont be inter-governmental (relating to governance structure).<br>
<br>
Alternatively, US government can make ICANN an international
organisation giving its jurisdictional immunities, <a
href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7176">exactly as it
has done to International Fertilizer Development Centre</a>. <br>
<br>
<a
href="https://iocareers.state.gov/Main/Content/Page/approved-international-organizations">This
is the list of organisations designated as international
organisations</a> by the US government. If you look beyond
category 2 in this list, many of these are not inter-gov in their
management/ governance structure and so not inter-governmental. <br>
<br>
Hope this satisfies you that possibilities of internationalising
ICANN do exist. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E22458930@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div><font face="Verdana">
</font>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Philip S. Corwin,
Founding Principal</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Virtualaw LLC</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">1155 F Street, NW</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Suite 1050</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Washington, DC 20004</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-559-8597/Direct</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-559-8750/Fax</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-255-6172/cell</font></strong></p>
<p><strong></strong> </p>
<p><em><strong><font color="#000080">"Luck is the residue
of design" -- Branch Rickey</font></strong></em></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF429678" style="direction: ltr;"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<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-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] on
behalf of Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br">pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 24, 2016 9:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> parminder; Kavouss Arasteh; Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed
Questions and Poll Results<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><font face="Verdana"
size="3">Dear CCWG-colleagues,</font>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:medium">After
reading some comments in this email thread, I must
admit to be really disappointed.</span><span
class="apple-converted-space"
style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:medium"> </span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font
face="Verdana" size="3"><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.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font
face="Verdana" size="3"> </font></span><span
style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:medium">In
our view, the
</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;
font-size:medium"> </span><span
style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:medium">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
</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;
font-size:medium"> </span><span
style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:medium">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><span class="apple-converted-space"
style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:medium"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font
face="Verdana" size="3">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 government´s
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
businesses´ 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
ICANN´s acts and/or omissions.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font
face="Verdana" size="3">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.</font></span></p>
<font face="Verdana" size="3"><span
style="line-height:115%" lang="EN-US"> 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 ICANN´s 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> </font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Kind regards,</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz
da Silva </font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Division of
Information Society</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Ministry of Foreign
Affairs - Brazil</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">T: +55 61 2030-6609</font></div>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;
color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF977723" style="direction:ltr"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>De:</b>
<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-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] em nome de parminder
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Enviado:</b> quinta-feira, 22 de dezembro de
2016 14:01<br>
<b>Para:</b> Kavouss Arasteh; Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Cc:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Assunto:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction
Proposed Questions and Poll Results<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<p><font face="Verdana">Dear Kavouss</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">You are right, we should
first deal with the issue of the
questionnaire.
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I agree, as do many
others, that there is no justification to
remove the proposed Q 4 from the
questionnaire. The question must go out along
with others.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">A question seeking
information is only a question seeking
information. People may chose to not respond
to it, or give different responses, likely in
opposition to one another. That is all very
fine, and quite expected. But such forceful
arguments to not ask for certain kinds of
information is very disturbing, even alarming.
(I have issues with how the other questions
are framed, but I am fine to let them go out
because some people want them to be posed.)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Ordinarily, if a good
number of participants here wanted a question,
that should be enough to include it. Here, a
majority of those who voted on the issue of
this particular question wanted the question
included. That should have conclusively
stopped the debate. But no, not so. There is
persistent effort to censor this question. And
this in a process that is advertised as open,
transparent, collaborative, and what not.
There is something very basically wrong here.
<br>
</font></p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 22
December 2016 07:20 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px
#ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </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"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </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"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </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"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </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"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US">Best regards,
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif; font-size:16pt" lang="EN-US">John
Laprise, Ph.D.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US">Consulting Scholar</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/"
target="_blank"><span><span
style="color:rgb(5,99,193); font-family:"Garamond",serif"
lang="EN-US"></span></span></a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/">http://www.linkedin.com/in/</a></a><wbr>jplaprise/<span></span><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </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
style="color:windowtext; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US">
parminder [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange">mailto:parminder@itforchange</a></a>.<wbr>net]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday,
December 20, 2016 2:57
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Laprise
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com"
target="_blank">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com"><jlaprise@gmail.com></a></a>;
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-<wbr><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:community@icann.org">community@icann.org</a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction
Proposed Questions and
Poll Results</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday
19 December 2016 08:14 PM,
John Laprise wrote:<br>
<br>
</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></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</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></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US">Best regards,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif; font-size:16pt" lang="EN-US">John
Laprise, Ph.D.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US">Consulting Scholar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:rgb(5,99,193);
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/">http://www.linkedin.com/in/</a><wbr>jplaprise/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Garamond",serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"> </span></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
style="color:windowtext; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-size:11pt"
lang="EN-US">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-<wbr><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:community-bounces@icann.org">community-bounces@icann.org</a></a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross">mailto:accountability-cross</a>-<wbr><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:community-bounces@icann.org">community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday,
December 19, 2016 7:10
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-<wbr><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:community@icann.org">community@icann.org</a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[CCWG-ACCT]
Jurisdiction Proposed
Questions and Poll
Results</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Saturday 17 December 2016
12:40 AM, Mueller, Milton
L wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;
margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre>SNIP </pre>
<pre>John Laprise's wording was much, much better: </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?"</pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
This formulation does not
include possibilities of
jurisdictional immunity. <br>
<br>
Something like <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</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?"</pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
would be better.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;
margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre> </pre>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________</pre>
<pre>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a>
<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/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New"}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri}
.MsoPapDefault
{margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
-->
</style></div>
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="" color="#000000" align="left">No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a>
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>