<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Dear parminder,<div class="">Instead of responding here, can I ask you for patience until this afternoon? As announced earlier, I will speak to this during the jurisdiction session.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks</div><div class="">Thomas </div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 25.06.2017 um 08:18 schrieb parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" class="">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 23 June 2017 02:58 AM, Thomas
Rickert wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:0EC58059-0DEB-480E-9DC7-7C67CDF9959D@rickert.net" class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">Dear all,
As previously mentioned, we will address the issue of the procedural decision the co-chairs took during our meeting at ICANN59 in detail.
However, given the ongoing debate on the list, let me please offer a clarification on one aspect of what I said and, more importantly, what was not said.
The co-chairs established that
1. Relocalization of ICANN to another jurisdiction and
2. Making ICANN an immune organization
were suggestions that did not get sufficient traction to be further pursued.
I did not speak to the question of partial immunity. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Thomas, Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking
the liberty to highlight relevant parts.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote class=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px" class="">We have
concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California
jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and
that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's
jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters<b class=""> or
seek immunity for ICANN</b>. With this decision we are
recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be
consensus for<b class=""> an immunity based concept</b> or a change of
place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the
minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets
most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I
think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all
issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we
actually focus on the status quo being California law and place
of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on
this.</span><br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
(quote ends)<br class="">
<br class="">
You clearly removed discussions and possible recommendations on "an
immunity based concept", which evidently includes everything related
to possible immunities, that phrase seems specifically tailored to
cover anything that included the concept of immunity - partial
immunity, tailored immunity, whatever. Expecting that you made this
sweeping decision after having closely observed the concerned
discussions on the list, or being duly reported about them, I cannot
see how you could have missed the fact that much of the immunity
discussions involved partial or tailored immunity. <br class="">
<br class="">
In the circumstances, I see this post facto amendment to the
decision, after facing strong criticism about the process adopted by
you to arrive at it, as an attempt to some make adjustments to its
substance to cover up what are strong procedural faults with the
decision. The process you adopted was wrong, and the decision should
be withdrawn in all aspects for that reason alone.<br class="">
<br class="">
regards, parminder <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:0EC58059-0DEB-480E-9DC7-7C67CDF9959D@rickert.net" class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">
Please note that this clarification is in no way intended to be understood as an endorsement of the concept of partial or relative immunity, but I thought it was necessary to go on the record on this aspect.
Thanks and kind regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" class="">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>