<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 &lt;<a
                href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" class=""
                moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a>&gt;:</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>