<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 25 June 2017 12:41 PM, Thomas
Rickert wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE02D04E-D1E9-455A-9742-7D70759539F7@rickert.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Thomas<br>
<br>
Sure, the f2f meeting will be the perfect place for your response.
Since I am unable to attend I took this route to put my points on
the table. Thanks, parminder <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE02D04E-D1E9-455A-9742-7D70759539F7@rickert.net">
<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=""
moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" 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 class="" wrap="">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 class="" wrap="">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" moz-do-not-send="true">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=""
moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br
class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>