<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;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
        panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman",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;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;
        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;}
--></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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I don’t see separability and jurisdiction as ‘conjoined twins,’ Carleton. One could change the jurisdiction of
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">ICANN/IANA without making IANA separable, and you could separate IANA from ICANN without changing jurisdiction.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> cwg-rfp3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Carlton Samuels<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Cc:</b> cwg-rfp3@icann.org; Lindeberg, Elise<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-RFP3] Is there is a more suitable legal jurisdiction for anIANA subsidiary?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">I suppose there has been some discussion of putting IANA, Inc. in a different jurisdiction -- which goes back to the original question of what jurisdictional concerns do stakeholders actually have?<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">You got that right! And it stems from the common and sustained political undercurrent to this entire debate, what some bluntly - and maybe intemperately - refer as 'US control'.
This is what makes separability and jurisdiction like conjoined twins; one goes everywhere with the other until you decided to maybe sacrifice one or other.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">To dismiss - or rather ignore - it will not let it go away. And, naysaying does violence to reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">-Carlton <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
<i><span style="color:#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</span></i><br>
=============================<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>