<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd just like to clear up just a few misconceptions in the email below in advance of our discussion this afternoon, especially since many in the Plenary will not have followed the Jurisdiction subgroup email list where much of this took place. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><i style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></i></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><i style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">"It is clear that this decision has been found faulty and criticised by majority of participants in the e-discussions here, even those who otherwise may agree with not pursuing the course that the Chair unilaterally forbid us from taking." </i><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This is not factually correct. Among those who commented on list, 11 expressed support for the decision, 2 commented without objection, 7 criticized it in part and supported it in part, and 2 objected completely. (FYI, the group has approximately 70 members.)</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"it begun with the "out of scope" discussion and suddenly became "unlikely to find consensus" decision -- which are two very different things." <br></i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">There was nothing "sudden" -- the discussion evolved based on the contributions of participants during the first of two full meetings on the subject and on the email list between meetings.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"It appears that it was triggered from some nervousness arising out of the responses to the questionnaire that was sent to the public, where many response spoke of need for clear institutional changes to the jurisdictional status quo." </i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This is factually incorrect. First, the speculation about how this came about is wrong. Not only was there no "nervousness", but there was no particular focus on the questionnaire responses.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Second, it is incorrect to say that "many responses" spoke of the need for "clear institutional changes to the jurisdictional status quo." The questionnaire wasn't supposed to be used to divine the popularity of certain viewpoints. It would be inappropriate to aggregate the responses to do so. However, if we were to "count noses," the statement would be wrong.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The Subgroup received 21 responses. 12 expressed no concerns about ICANN's jurisdiction in any way. 5 responses raised issues for the Subgroup, but did not call for institutional changes to the jurisdictional status quo (1 mentioned the concept but stated it was too early for such an examination. Only 4 responses called for institutional changes to the jurisdictional status quo. So, at most 5 out of 21 responses even contemplated such changes.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"in a single sweep not only the discussions on possible changes to the ICANN incorporation but the much more "easier to deal with" subject of tailored immunities for ICANN was banned to be discussed any further."<br></i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This mischaracterized what happened. The Co-Chairs' statement does not refer to "tailored immunities." As Thomas pointed out, that was not the focus of their concern, and that has since been clarified. The focus of the Subgroup discussion on immunity has been on broad sovereign-type immunities, so it should have been clear that this was the Co-Chairs' focus as well. it wasn't clear enough, so it has been clarified.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"In any case, it was the sub group chair's decision that we will come to "remedies" or institutional changes only after having listed out "issues" that need to be addressed." </i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This is set forth in the Subgroup's Work Plan; it was not my decision, though I support the Work Plan (which also intended for us to clarify issues of scope and focus at this point).<i> <br></i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"whether sub group chair had submitted a report that the sub group's work is not able to be pursued." </i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I don't believe anyone suggested this had happened. But concerns have been expressed from various quarters that we are going in circles, and that our earlier decision not to clarify the breadth of our work was a strong contributing factor. </p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"Strangely, the sub group chair has been presenting this as entirely the CCWG chair's decision." </i></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Nothing strange, just the truth.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><i>"Subsequent to the strong reactions to the decision,"</i> <br></p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">As noted above, there were only a few reactions that did not favor the decision, and there were "strong reactions" going in both directions.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I hope this helps better frame the discussion for the Plenary.</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Greg</p><p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 7:02 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">All</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Since I will not be able to attend today f2f
meeting I wanted to share some points.</font></p>
<p>The main issue for the meeting, in my understanding, is to deal
with the sudden decision of the CWCG chair about what the sub
group should and should not do. It is clear that this decision has
been found faulty and criticised by majority of participants in
the e-discussions here, even those who otherwise may agree with
not pursuing the course that the Chair unilaterally forbid us from
taking. The decision is simply procedurally wrong, and must be
dumped... Among other things, it begun with the "out of scope"
discussion and suddenly became "unlikely to find consensus"
decision -- which are two very different things. Almost everything
is wrong with the manner in which the decision was imposed on the
group. <br>
</p>
<p>It is evident that there was a premeditated attempt - I dont know
among or at the behest of whom - to simply gag the jurisdiction
discussion, which happens to be one of the most important topics
since the start of the transition process, and even much before..
It appears that it was triggered from some nervousness arising out
of the responses to the questionnaire that was sent to the public,
where many response spoke of need for clear institutional changes
to the jurisdictional status quo. The conspiratorial basis of this
decision is also highlighted by how in a single sweep not only the
discussions on possible changes to the ICANN incorporation but the
much more "easier to deal with" subject of tailored immunities for
ICANN was banned to be discussed any further. <br>
</p>
<p>There has been simply no grounds for this....In any case, it was
the sub group chair's decision that we will come to "remedies" or
institutional changes only after having listed out "issues" that
need to be addressed. The sudden parachuting in of the CCWG
chair's decision therefore looks even more problematic, and smells
of something quite not right going on behind the curtains. <br>
</p>
<p>Neither there was enough ground-work done towards reaching this
decision that goes to the very heart of the sub group's work. If
there is any claims of due process in ICANN, we need to simply
strike down the decision, and start anew with whatever concerns
there may be that precipitated this crisis. <br>
</p>
<p>The Chair must explain why he made this problematic intervention,
and whether sub group chair had submitted a report that the sub
group's work is not able to be pursued. Strangely, the sub group
chair has been presenting this as entirely the CCWG chair's
decision. What did CCWG learn, from where, and what was his chain
of reasoning to make this decision? Did he hold any closed group
or individual consultations? We must be told what really happened.</p>
<p>Subsequent to the strong reactions to the decision, CCWG chair
must withdraw it, or the CCWG assembly should force it to be
withdrawn. It is wrong in process, and it cannot now be attempted
to be corrected post-facto by admitting some substantive changes.
The process itself is sacrosanct, and must be upheld, independent
of the nature of substantive views in the group. <br>
</p>
<p>I suspect that the decision will be attempted to made palatable
by making marginal concessions on it, but that I insist is not the
point. Upholding due process, and resisting abuse of process and
power must be our first and main priority today.</p><span class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>parminder</p></font></span><div><div class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-h5">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 20 June 2017 12:46 AM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-h5">
<div class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Sorry
if I missed the boat, Greg, but I did review the emails on
the list fairly extensively before commenting, and it sure
looked like we were having a scope debate rather than a
substantive debate. It is possible that the initial framing
as a scope debate triggered a lot of responses and emotions
that the overall dialogue never got beyond. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">One
of the problems with framing it as scope is that it lets
those who want to argue for a change in the
jurisdiction/place of incorporation off the hook. They can
make perfectly reasonable and convincing arguments that it
is not out of scope, even if they are unable to demonstrate
a clearly superior alternative to California law that is
compatible with the WS1 accountability mechanisms. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Let’s
get out of that rut.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
think the subgroup has done more extensive quality work than
people who are watching it day to day realize. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
have clarified the set of problems we face with the layer
model;<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
have reviewed most of the relevant court cases (still
ongoing);<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
have identified specific problems with U.S. jurisdiction
(OFAC and similar US-imposed sanctions);<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
have discussed the US Immunities Act, and with one or two
exceptions agreed that it would not be a good path to take<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
have discovered that those who most want to move it out of
California cannot name or identify a specific, superior
location/jurisdiction, but must instead appeal to
“international jurisdiction,” which means a new
international treaty and new organizational arrangement that
would require re-doing the entire transition process. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Let’s
reach consensus on two simple points: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>1.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">There
ARE problems of accountability caused by U.S. jurisdiction,
notably around OFAC sanctions<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>2.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">There
is no reasonable prospect of improvement to come from
uprooting ICANN, completely changing its legal status and
moving to an unknown and as yet undeveloped alternative<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
Greg Shatan [<a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.co<wbr>m</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 19, 2017 12:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Laprise <a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com" target="_blank"><jlaprise@gmail.com></a>;
Mueller, Milton L <a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank"><milton@gatech.edu></a>;
ws2-jurisdiction <a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank"><ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question
Presented<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Milton,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I actually agree with you, up to a
point. The slide you refer to was a strawman and a
jumping-off point for discussion. By the second call,
last week, we had moved away from that slide and from
discussing the issue in terms of scope. The CCWG
Co-Chairs instead framed the issue around the question
"what will get sufficient traction in the group" vs.
subjects that will not get sufficient traction, and
thus would not lead to a consensus recommendation. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, I don't think this was an
instance of anyone preempting a discussion, much less
dishonestly. As noted, no issues have been foreclosed
by the Co-Chair's decision, which is aligned with your
point #2 -- the "lack of traction" for recommending
changes to ICANN's corporate status. I hope that
everyone is interested in substantive debate, and I
hope to see plenty of it in this group in the coming
weeks.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:41 AM
John Laprise <<a href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com" target="_blank">jlaprise@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-6722895179673783528_m_8186060019395558973_m_-3431946777163345412_m_838243520182108"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)">+1</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)">Best
regards, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)">John
Laprise, Ph.D.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)">Principal
Consultant</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(5,99,193)">http://www.linkedin.com/in/jpl<wbr>aprise/</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Garamond,serif;color:rgb(153,51,102)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span><a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
[mailto:</span><a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Mueller, Milton L<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 19, 2017 9:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan <</span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">>;
ws2-jurisdiction <</span><a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">acct-staff@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction]
Question Presented</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Please
pardon my late intervention. We were presented
with this question:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973m-3431946777163345412m8382435201821088497default"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,72,124)">Question: Is
considering or recommending changes to
ICANN's status as a not-for-profit
California corporation within the scope of
the Subgroup?</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Two
things seem obvious to me:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
issue IS within the intended scope of the
subgroup, and </span><u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">There
is overwhelming consensus AGAINST
recommending changes to ICANN’s status as a
nonprofit California public benefit
corporation. </span><u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">It
seems to me that most of the debate is
confusing issue #1 with issue #2. The entire
discussion has not developed any real
alternative, much less a clearly superior one,
to California jurisdiction. The identified
problems with US jurisdiction (mainly OFAC)
can be addressed without moving ICANN’s place
of incorporation. So let’s stop trying to
dishonestly pre-empt resolution of the
jurisdiction issue by ruling certain
discussions “out of scope.” Let’s resolve it
honestly by developing and acknowledging
consensus around the fact that other than the
meaningless mirage of “international
jurisdiction” there is no better framework
within which to work than California law. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The
debate about scope, in other words, is a
diversion from the substantive issue, and I
wish the chairs and the Americans in the
subgroup would stop trying to pre-empt
substantive debate with scope debate. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people
who agree with me can take this perspective
into the f2f meeting.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dr.
Milton L. Mueller</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Professor,
School of Public Policy</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Georgia
Institute of Technology</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span><a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> [</span><a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> ws2-jurisdiction <</span><a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">acct-staff@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Ws2-jurisdiction]
Question Presented</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Please see attached.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-"><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-6722895179673783528gmail-m_8186060019395558973moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>