<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 October 2016 08:20 PM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733C7F8C8197B671D55758FA1DA0@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;
color:black;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
don’t think the question of public law is out of
consideration. There is much talk of “applicable [public]
law” when we consider dispute resolution/choice of law, for
example. However, it is not clear how those issues fit into
the “jurisdiction layer” model that seems to be clarifying
and driving our agenda. So I hope Greg and Vinay can weigh
in on that issue for us.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That would be eminently useful. Meanwhile I have tried to insert the
issue in the google doc on jurisdictional layers. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733C7F8C8197B671D55758FA1DA0@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
I understand you correctly, public law issues are analogous
to a “stress test;” there is no major issue with it now, but
we need to explore how the new ICANN regime will react if
something happens. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes and no. It depends on whether you considered the issue of
setting up of outer 'accountability mechanisms' - as were set up
earlier in the process - as analogous to a "stress test". Even there
one could say, there is really no actual issue right now, but one
needs to be prepared for what would happen as some - very likely -
issues come up. Same with the "application of public law" issue - it
concerns matters that are almost structurally imminent, sooner or
later, as could have been said about outer accountability attracting
matters. In fact, one can say even more imminent in case of "public
law application" than attracting the need for activating the outer
accountability mechanism . We know that .xxx and .africa cases are
already in the court, and many more would come as thousands of gTLDs
are taken up<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733C7F8C8197B671D55758FA1DA0@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">E.g.,
the European Commission opens an antitrust investigation
into ICANN, or a (unlikely) Trump administration pushes a
bill through Congress re-regulating ICANN</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Other polities claiming jurisdiction over ICANN - like in your EU
example, is one class of problems. These can only be avoided if all
jurisdictions give a prior undertaking that they would not do any
such thing, which generally comes as part of a treaty. But right now
I am less interested in this class of problems, and more in those
which are likely to arise from within the US.<br>
<br>
I am not even beginning to think of what a Trump administration may
do -- though in fact the rest of the world should be thinking of it.
Core Internet infrastructure is too important not to get into these
kinds of thoughts. It could be Trump, or another like him in future
(allow me to make a political comment -- the race has been so close
that one can easily say that an equally vicious but a little less
stupid Trump could have quite likely made it to the White House :)
). <br>
<br>
I am still only thinking of things that are imminent under any US
administration. You or anyone else hasnt replied to some questions I
have repeatedly raised:<br>
<br>
1. What happens if the concerned US court holds .xxx to be against
US's competition law? Describe the steps that will follow, and how
can ICANN avoid bending its policy making process and authority to
the will of the US state.<br>
<br>
2. Same about .africa.<br>
<br>
3. With 100s of new gTLDs getting operational, many of them private
closed ones with generic names (but that is hardly the only issue,
there could be many others), is it not obvious that we will be
seeing many court cases around them... What would ICANN do the
moment an adverse judgement comes?<br>
<br>
4. What if OFAC doesn’t give licence to ICANN for dealing with a
particular country due to great deterioration of relationships with
the US.<br>
<br>
5. What if the FCC revises its decision of forbearance about its
authority over Internet addressing system (as it did on the issue of
whether Internet was title one or title two)?<br>
<br>
6. There are almost as many US agencies that can exercise mandate
over ICANN's domain name policies as there are sectors that the
Internet and thus its naming system impacts. (ICANN allowed some
'regulatory policies' to buyers of .pharmacy, and going forward as
it also does this with many other sectoral domain names, all of
these can be challenged, in the courts, as well as with sectoral
regulatory bodies). What then?<br>
<br>
If you even begin trying to deal with these questions, you will
realise what a volcanic earth we are sitting upon, in refusing to
see the public law jurisdiction issue.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733C7F8C8197B671D55758FA1DA0@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:59 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Our work so
far, and a way forward<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday 10 October 2016 10:28 AM,
Greg Shatan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In
order to move forward, and based on the discussions
so far, I suggest the following approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">First,
we should continue the current approach of defining
and refining the various layers of jurisdiction, and
I encourage you all to go to the Google doc and add
your views. </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE9xDIAJhr4Nx7vNO_mWotSXuUtTgJMRs6U92yTgOH4/edit?usp=sharing"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE9xDIAJhr4Nx7vNO_mWotSXuUtTgJMRs6U92yTgOH4/edit?usp=sharing</span></a><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Second,
we won't investigate changing ICANN's headquarters
or incorporation jurisdiction at this time.
However, it's not off the table -- if we identify an
issue during our work and we can't find a less
drastic way to deal with that issue, we will revisit
this point at that time. We can then revisit the
concerns that people have raised regarding such a
recommendation in the context of a particular issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
While I can always insert this in the Google doc, I prefer
to first discuss this here. (And yes I am repeating it.) The
jurisdiction issue is best divided as (1) application of
public law, (2) application of private law, (3) the rest of
sundry stuff - like about different global offices and
interaction with respective domestic jurisdiction (these are
of relatively minor significance, and there may not be much
to 'decide' about them in advance)<br>
<br>
Place of incorporation and location of HQ (which is almost
always the same) may be the proxy for 'application of public
law' but they do not necessarily conflate. US government by
decree has given jurisdictional immunities even to such
bodies that are *not* created under international law and
simply registered as private bodies, in the US or elsewhere.
This certainly is an important possibility to look into for
ICANN, which insulates it from application of US public law
- in terms of its key organisational activities -- without
moving the headquarters or even jurisdiction of
incorporation. <br>
<br>
I will repeat the question I put to the chairs in my last
email: "<span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">are we
considering this issue of application of US public law to
ICANN, and the problems that it may cause with respect to
its policy processes, and being able to appropriately
carry out its global governance role? " <br>
<br>
The concerns around application of public law are very
different than those of application of private law -- and
often different actors have these two different kinds of
concerns. Public law also have application over private
law cases.
<br>
<br>
If this group does not intend to get into the 'application
of public law' question and stick to issues of private
law, then let it decide and state as much in clear terms.
Such actors whose interest in the jurisdiction question
comes primarily from the public law aspect can then
disengage from spending further time in this process - as
for instance I will like to do.
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Third,
we should put aside "confirming and assessing the
gap analysis" for the moment. There is still a
diversity of views on what this "gap analysis" was
and what we need to do to confirm and assess it. As
a result, our time has been spent discussing the
parameters of the assignment, rather than working on
the assignment itself. I believe that we will be
better able to define the scope of this item and
move to substance, if we spend some time looking at
the substance of an issue that is clearly within our
scope.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">After
we finish clarifying the multiple layers of
jurisdiction, we should move to an issue that is
clearly within our scope -- something we have to
do. That way we can move to the substance of the
issue and not spend a lot of time on "scope."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">An
issue that is clearly within our scope relates to
ICANN's jurisdictions for settlement of
disputes (i.e., venue and choice of law).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
One way is to look at this is as concerning the application
of private law on iCANN matters. But then, like in the case
of .xxx, what if the dispute invokes a public law (US
competition law in this instance) -- which one can be
assured that every disputant will do as long as it can find
a favourable US public law which seems to side with the way
the disputant wants things to go. As we explore the issue of
'settlement of disputes' are we going to look only to
private law part and not public law? That IMHO would be
quite inappropriate. But then if we are going to look into
both private law and public law elements, the discussion
gets messy because private law can involve choice of
jurisdiction but not public law. This is why I think it is
best if we divide our work and discussions as I suggested
above, separately about issues of public law and those of
private law.
<br>
<br>
But, as I said before, issues of public law are simply out,
let us then be clear about it. I request a clarification by
the chairs.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">There
should not be any question that this is within the
scope of our group (Annex 12 refers to this as the
"focus" for our group). Based on Annex 12, this
involves looking at: "The influence that ICANN’s
existing jurisdiction" relating to resolution of
disputes "may have on the actual operation of
policies
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Application of US public law on ICANN has enormous influence
on 'actual operation of (ICANN) policies'. And so we are
very much within our mandate in discussing issues arising
from 'public law' aspect.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">and
accountability mechanisms." I suggest that we
examine this "influence" and determine what this
"influence" is. Our work looking at venue and
choice of law in the "multiple layers of
jurisdiction" will help us in this task.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I gave a few instances in my last email of influence of US
public law on operation of ICANN policies. Would these
examples qualify to be considered under this or not?<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">A
note on process -- it is very important that we
focus on creating written material. In our calls, we
should be working on and working from these written
materials. Ultimately, these writings will feed into
our deliverable. Put another way, you should focus
your contributions on adding to the drafts
(currently, the "layers of jurisdiction" document),
rather than on relying solely on oral interventions
in our calls -- after all we have 168 hours in a
week, and only 1 hour for our call.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I agree. Calls can only help confirm or resolve some
outstanding issues, and lay further directions. What we can
accomplish in writing we should do. In that regard, I also
think that to th extent issues can be addressed and resolved
in email exchanges here they best be done so...<br>
<br>
Thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
look forward to our upcoming call.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>