<div dir="ltr">I wanted to briefly come back to question (b) in Carolina's email of Nov. 4, because I think it is based on an incorrect premise.<div><br></div><div>"<span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">b) Are there specific benefits in having an international non-profit organization based under a regime within a Federal system - with its own state judiciaries, rather than a united </span><span class="" style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">national</span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> jurisdiction?"I</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I wanted to clarify how the US judicial system works, hopefully without being too simplistic. There is both a unified national system (the "Federal" courts) and a set of separate state-level systems (the "State" courts).</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">In the Federal system, the US is divided into "circuits," and each circuit is further divided into "districts." District courts serve as the trial courts for virtually all cases that can be brought in Federal court. A District Court will cover all or part of a single state. District Court rulings can be appealed to the Circuit Court. Circuit Courts cover several states (putting aside an anomaly called the Federal Circuit). Circuit Court rulings can be appealed the U.S. Supreme Court, which covers the entire US. Not all cases can be brought in Federal court, but there are a variety of ways that a case can be within the jurisdiction of the Federal couirts. Federal courts are run by the US.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">State court systems are part of state government and the exact set-up and names of the courts tend to vary from state to state. Typically, there is a trial court level and an appeals court level (or two levels of appeal as in the Federal system).</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Some types of cases (e.g., copyright) can only be brought in Federal court ("exclusive jurisidiction").</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> Other types can be brought in either Federal or state court (e.g., trademark) ("concurrent jurisdiction").</span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> Cases involving state law issues can often be brought in Federal court if certain criteria are met (e.g., dollar amount, diversity of citizenship (two different states or two different countries)). Larger, more complex cases tend to end up in Federal court (often, but not always). I think the "division of labor" between the state and Federal judiciaries tends to work quite well, with smaller,more local cases tending to be in state court, and larger, more complex ones tending to end up in Federal court. Also, criminal cases (especially violent crime) tends to end up in state court more often than Federal -- hopefully that is not within the scope of our discussions!</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div>I hope that helps, at least from a factual standpoint.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg</div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Carolina Aguerre <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carolina@lactld.org" target="_blank">carolina@lactld.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hi Jordan, All,<br>
While I tend to agree that it would not be a good idea to separate
the jurisdictions of ICANN and IANA, I would like to have
evidence-based arguments in favour of a California -based
jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer, nor an expert in international
legislation, but I would like to know: <br>
a) What are the specific safeguards that California provides with
respect to other States in the US for an international non-profit
such as ICANN? <br>
b) Are there specific benefits in having an international
non-profit organization based under a regime within a Federal
system - with its own state judiciaries, rather than a united
national jurisdiction? <br>
<br>
I think that it is precisely by pointing at evidence and facts
that the whole issue around the ICANN - IANA jurisdiction might
become less politicized.<br>
Thanks.<br>
Best regards,<br>
Carolina<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 04/11/2014 06:15 a.m., Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">All:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My view *at this stage* is that there are clear advantages
to California jurisdiction that other less transparent regimes
would find hard to match. If there was to be an IANA
subsidiary company wholly owned by ICANN (a viable option),
then it would make sense for it to be in the same
jurisdiction.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't want to see ICANN or IANA pretending to become IGOs
and retreating to the secrecy of Swiss law or anything like
that, personally.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, I am aware of many criticisms of how ICANN has
used the "California law" card as a way to get out of things.
The truth of those is beyond my experience, but I wonder how
often the courts of California have decided those issues,
rather than assertions by ICANN legal? My suspicion is the
courts haven't played much of a role - or in other words, that
it may not be the California jurisdiction that's the problem
so much as how it is being interpreted...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best,</div>
<div>Jordan</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 4 November 2014 05:33, Greg
Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">All:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is Robert's second question (which I think
also applies to the concept of a fully independent
IANA): </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b><font color="#0000ff">For option #2.<br>
<br>
- Is there is a jurisdiction that ICANN has (or
can obtain) legal status might be more suitable
to use to create IANA as a subsidiary. Such an
option might allow for the link to be a
subsidiary of ICANN, but sever the legal link to
the US. A negative, of course, would be moving
the function and existing staff to a new part of
the world.</font></b><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Comments and discussion?</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greg</div>
</font></span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org" target="_blank">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and
protect its potential.</i><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
<a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org" target="_blank">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>-- <br>
<img src="cid:part5.08080209.01040103@lactld.org" border="0"></div>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>