<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1320187196;
mso-list-template-ids:-1149880434;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>As with me. The incorrect suggestion of prejudice improperly denigrates the work of the subgroup.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Laprise<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 27, 2017 5:04 PM<br><b>To:</b> parminder <parminder@itforchange.net><br><b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] 2nd reading of jurisdiction sub group report<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Speaking as a member, I listened but my disagreement was not motivated by prejudice. I simply found your positions lacked sufficient merit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 4:24 PM parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p>Greg<o:p></o:p></p><p>It is unfortunate that among the few and very weak arguments that you put forward today in the f3f meeting about why customised immunity was never officially discussed in the sub-group you said that this was because it was offered as remedy without showing the issues that it addressed.... This, as I said during the meeting, is a shockingly false statement, and I said that I would provide evidence for it. You came back and stood by your statement. And so, the evidence as I promised is below.<o:p></o:p></p><p>You set up a google doc on influence of existing jurisdiction on ICANN (link to it follows) to collect the issues that needed to be addressed, right.... One of the first entries made on it was mine, and it was extensively commented upon (most extensively by yourself).... This was close to the start of the process, near the middle of 2016. The entry on various issues I made was as follows.<o:p></o:p></p><p>(cut paste form the doc begins)<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><ol start=1 type=1><li style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its policies –like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions.<o:p></o:p></li><li style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries).<o:p></o:p></li><li style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries.<o:p></o:p></li><li style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public.<o:p></o:p></li><li style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property laws.<o:p></o:p></li><li style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement, and conditions under it.<o:p></o:p></li></ol></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>(ENDS)<br><br>This entry with many comments is still visible in this doc that you developed, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit</a> <br><br>All these are directly issues that point towards customised immunity as the remedy -- and lest there be any doubt the connection was explicitly made in group's email discussions. Many of these issues were again underlined by a statement made, in Nov 2016 at Hyderabad ICANN, by nearly all Indian NGOs active in IG area and supported by two largest global coalitions in this area. Pl see <a href="http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf" target="_blank">http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf</a> . The statement connects these issues to customised immunity as a possible remedy, providing full details. This statement was posted on sub -group's list and discussed. Then during the public comment period (response to the questionnaire, pl see the corresponding ICANN page) many inputs once again raised important issues and linked them to customized immunity as a possible solution....<br><br>It is most shocking now at the end of the process to hear from the sub group's chair that customised immunity was always being proposed without showing the issues that it could remedy -- AND THAT WAS THE REASON IT NEVER GOT AN OFFICIAL SLOT FOR DISCUSSION. <br><br>Greg, you must either disprove what I am saying here, and saying it with documented evidence, or withdraw your statement that undermines the large amount of work that so many of us did, and indeed the whole sub group's working..... We cannot let such false statements to be recorded as the historical records of this group's work, and the transcript of today's f2f meeting is supposed to go as a record annexed to the final report..<br><br>Our problem is; there was just too much prejudice, and people, including prominently the process heads/ chairs, were simply not listening to many us, they were tuned out even before the deliberative process begun!! This is not a consultative and participative process, this is something made to look like one....<br><br>Look forward to your response<br><br>parminder <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p>sss<o:p></o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>