<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 17 October 2016 10:49 AM,
Schweighofer Erich wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:74593DF2C67DFB449A43BD450E08E07ED70DD90A@EXDB4.d.univie.ac.at"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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:0cm;
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:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
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">Good
clarification.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Please add to „constraints on free choice in
private law“: Many countries (e.g. EU legislation, Lugano
Convention) restrict choice of law and forum in favour of
consumers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Best, Erich Schweighofer
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, so also in most other countries... Therefore not only is it of
prime importance in our discussions on jurisdiction to distinguish
between public law - where no choice of jurisdiction is available --
and private law -- where such choice 'may' in certain cases be
available, it is also important to understand and highlight that
public law can trounce private law. And so while ICANN and a
contracting party may choose a certain jurisdiction of application
on matters of contract between them, US public law (where ICANN is
located and incorporated) may still come in and decide that certain
matters of the contract attract public law application, and
intervene accordingly. <br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:74593DF2C67DFB449A43BD450E08E07ED70DD90A@EXDB4.d.univie.ac.at"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="DE"> <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>Im
Auftrag von </b>parminder<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 17. Oktober 2016 07:14<br>
<b>An:</b> Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</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 Sunday 16 October 2016 07:08 PM,
Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Parminder<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you very much for the message.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You said for public law<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"in
the application of public law there is no choice of
jurisdiction available to the parties, and they are
subject the jurisdiction of the state where
</span></em><em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:red">they
are
</span></em><em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">located"</span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">What
do you mean by "</span></em><em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:red">
they" who are they ? both parties, one party ?</span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">You
also said
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"in
the application of private law, often though not
always a choice of jurisdiction is available to the
parties, especially as and if previously agreed to."
</span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">It
is not clear what you were to say, your statement is
unfortunately vagueas</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">May
you put it differently</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Kavouss
</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Sure, Kavouss. I agree I could have been clearer. <br>
<br>
Public law concerns issues between the society and one or more
individuals. The society is legally represented by the state,
and so in public law case/ dispute, this one side is fixed and
cannot be changed. Any party(one or more) that gets involved
in a public law dispute has no choice of jurisdiction, and the
jurisdiction where this party (or parties if there is more
than one) is located, and is a part of the wider society, will
apply.
<br>
<br>
So, in case of public law, there is no choice of jurisdiction,
jurisdiction of the place where a party (or parties) is
located/ incorporated will apply.
<br>
<br>
In case of private law, it is an issue between two or more
individuals (or legal entities) and in many cases it is
possible that they can preselect a jurisdiction of application
if there is a dispute about given matters for which the
jurisdiction is preselected. This generally happens in various
contracts.<br>
<br>
Application of labour law is a good example. Labour law
consists of some values and standards that a society decides
must apply to every employment. It is a public law. There is
*no* choice for a set of employer and employed, or even a
trade union on the latter's behalf, to agree *not* to be
subject to a society's labour laws. However, one can enter
into a contract of service (which may otherwise look quite
like employment) whereby the conditions of the contract can be
mutual agreed. I dont know how it is different countries, but
sometimes in such cases disputes under the contract can be
subject to mutually preselected jurisdiction. Private law is
in operation here.
<br>
<br>
IN case of private law, it may be possible to choose the
jurisdiction that will be applicable to disputes.
<br>
<br>
However, public law can always upstage private law
application; for instance labour courts can hold that certain
contracts of service should really have been cases of regular
employment, subject to public labour laws.<br>
<br>
Uber for instance makes out private contracts (under private
law) with its drivers. You would have heard that many drivers
have sued the company that this arrangement should in fact be
of regular employment, subject to labour laws (public law).
<br>
<br>
Hope this clarifies. parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2016-10-16 15:19 GMT+02:00 parminder
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">As
I mentioned, the distinction between public law and
private law is for instance spoken of in many
judgements of the highest courts in India, and is in
general understood and public law being that involving
the interests of the state/ society in an issue and
private law as only of specific individual parties.
Anyway, since we need to focus on our task at hand, I
will point to what should most matter to us with
regard to this distinction. We are taking about the
jurisdiction issue, and what may need to be and can be
done in this regard about the jurisdiction over
ICANN. In this regard it is most salient that</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">in
the application of public law there is no choice of
jurisdiction available to the parties, and they are
subject the jurisdiction of the state where they are
located</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">in
the application of private law, often though not
always a choice of jurisdiction is available to the
parties, especially as and if previously agreed to.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">anyway,
as Milton says, it is more important to address the
kind of scenarios that I have listed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">thanks,
parminder </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tuesday 11 October 2016
10:53 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not know if the US has a
different definition, but in the UK 'public law'
means law that applies to actions of the
Government.
<br>
<br>
So an action in judicial review to overturn an
adverse decision by an executive branch
decision-maker is an action in public law.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/10/16 16:19, Jeff Neuman wrote: <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Although
I am a properly licensed attorney in the United
States, I am
<br>
not clear on what the definition is of “public
law” vs. private law. <br>
That is not a concept that I am familiar with.
Are talking about <br>
statutory law vs. common law, or are we talking
about private causes of <br>
action vs. government causes of action. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sorry, but just trying to wrap my head around this
and why it matters. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*Jeffrey J. Neuman* <br>
<br>
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com
Laude USA* <br>
<br>
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 <br>
<br>
Mclean, VA 22102, United States <br>
<br>
E: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com"
target="_blank">jeff.neuman@valideus.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com"
target="_blank"><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com></a>or
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com"
target="_blank">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com"
target="_blank"><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com></a>
<br>
<br>
T: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1.703.635.7514" target="_blank">+1.703.635.7514</a>
<br>
<br>
M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1.202.549.5079" target="_blank">+1.202.549.5079</a>
<br>
<br>
@Jintlaw <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*From:*<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
<br>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>]
*On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L
<br>
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:51 AM <br>
*To:* parminder <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<br>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Our work so far,
and a way forward <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I don’t think the question of public law is out of
consideration. There <br>
is much talk of “applicable [public] law” when we
consider dispute <br>
resolution/choice of law, for example. However, it
is not clear how <br>
those issues fit into the “jurisdiction layer”
model that seems to be <br>
clarifying and driving our agenda. So I hope Greg
and Vinay can weigh in <br>
on that issue for us. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If I understand you correctly, public law issues
are analogous to a <br>
“stress test;” there is no major issue with it
now, but we need to <br>
explore how the new ICANN regime will react if
something happens. E.g., <br>
the European Commission opens an antitrust
investigation into ICANN, or <br>
a (unlikely) Trump administration pushes a bill
through Congress <br>
re-regulating ICANN <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*From:*<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org></a>
<br>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>]
*On Behalf Of *parminder
<br>
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:59 AM <br>
*To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank"><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org></a>
<br>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Our work so far,
and a way forward <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Monday 10 October 2016 10:28 AM, Greg Shatan
wrote: <br>
<br>
All, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In order to move forward, and based on the
discussions so far, I <br>
suggest the following approach. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
First, we should continue the current approach
of defining and <br>
refining the various layers of jurisdiction,
and I encourage you all <br>
to go to the Google doc and add your views. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE9xDIAJhr4Nx7vNO_mWotSXuUtTgJMRs6U92yTgOH4/edit?usp=sharing"
target="_blank">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE9xDIAJhr4Nx7vNO_mWotSXuUtTgJMRs6U92yTgOH4/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Second, we won't investigate changing ICANN's
headquarters or <br>
incorporation jurisdiction at this time.
However, it's not off the <br>
table -- if we identify an issue during our
work and we can't find a <br>
less drastic way to deal with that issue, we
will revisit this point <br>
at that time. We can then revisit the
concerns that people have <br>
raised regarding such a recommendation in the
context of a <br>
particular issue. <br>
<br>
<br>
While I can always insert this in the Google doc,
I prefer to first <br>
discuss this here. (And yes I am repeating it.)
The jurisdiction issue <br>
is best divided as (1) application of public law,
(2) application of <br>
private law, (3) the rest of sundry stuff - like
about different global <br>
offices and interaction with respective domestic
jurisdiction (these are <br>
of relatively minor significance, and there may
not be much to 'decide' <br>
about them in advance) <br>
<br>
Place of incorporation and location of HQ (which
is almost always the <br>
same) may be the proxy for 'application of public
law' but they do not <br>
necessarily conflate. US government by decree has
given jurisdictional <br>
immunities even to such bodies that are *not*
created under <br>
international law and simply registered as private
bodies, in the US or <br>
elsewhere. This certainly is an important
possibility to look into for <br>
ICANN, which insulates it from application of US
public law - in terms <br>
of its key organisational activities -- without
moving the headquarters <br>
or even jurisdiction of incorporation. <br>
<br>
I will repeat the question I put to the chairs in
my last email: "are we <br>
considering this issue of application of US public
law to ICANN, and the <br>
problems that it may cause with respect to its
policy processes, and <br>
being able to appropriately carry out its global
governance role? " <br>
<br>
The concerns around application of public law are
very different than <br>
those of application of private law -- and often
different actors have <br>
these two different kinds of concerns. Public law
also have application <br>
over private law cases. <br>
<br>
If this group does not intend to get into the
'application of public <br>
law' question and stick to issues of private law,
then let it decide and <br>
state as much in clear terms. Such actors whose
interest in the <br>
jurisdiction question comes primarily from the
public law aspect can <br>
then disengage from spending further time in this
process - as for <br>
instance I will like to do. <br>
<br>
Third, we should put aside "confirming and
assessing the gap <br>
analysis" for the moment. There is still a
diversity of views on <br>
what this "gap analysis" was and what we need
to do to confirm and <br>
assess it. As a result, our time has been
spent discussing the <br>
parameters of the assignment, rather than
working on the assignment <br>
itself. I believe that we will be better able
to define the scope <br>
of this item and move to substance, if we
spend some time looking at <br>
the substance of an issue that is clearly
within our scope. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
After we finish clarifying the multiple layers
of jurisdiction, we <br>
should move to an issue that is clearly within
our scope -- <br>
something we have to do. That way we can move
to the substance of <br>
the issue and not spend a lot of time on
"scope." <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
An issue that is clearly within our scope
relates to ICANN's <br>
jurisdictions for settlement of disputes
(i.e., venue and choice of <br>
law). <br>
<br>
<br>
One way is to look at this is as concerning the
application of private <br>
law on iCANN matters. But then, like in the case
of .xxx, what if the <br>
dispute invokes a public law (US competition law
in this instance) -- <br>
which one can be assured that every disputant will
do as long as it can <br>
find a favourable US public law which seems to
side with the way the <br>
disputant wants things to go. As we explore the
issue of 'settlement of <br>
disputes' are we going to look only to private law
part and not public <br>
law? That IMHO would be quite inappropriate. But
then if we are going to <br>
look into both private law and public law
elements, the discussion gets <br>
messy because private law can involve choice of
jurisdiction but not <br>
public law. This is why I think it is best if we
divide our work and <br>
discussions as I suggested above, separately about
issues of public law <br>
and those of private law. <br>
<br>
But, as I said before, issues of public law are
simply out, let us then <br>
be clear about it. I request a clarification by
the chairs. <br>
<br>
There should not be any question that this is
within the scope of <br>
our group (Annex 12 refers to this as the
"focus" for our group). <br>
Based on Annex 12, this involves looking at:
"The influence that <br>
ICANN’s existing jurisdiction" relating to
resolution of disputes <br>
"may have on the actual operation of policies
<br>
<br>
<br>
Application of US public law on ICANN has enormous
influence on 'actual <br>
operation of (ICANN) policies'. And so we are very
much within our <br>
mandate in discussing issues arising from 'public
law' aspect. <br>
<br>
and accountability mechanisms." I suggest that
we examine this <br>
"influence" and determine what this
"influence" is. Our work <br>
looking at venue and choice of law in the
"multiple layers of <br>
jurisdiction" will help us in this task. <br>
<br>
<br>
I gave a few instances in my last email of
influence of US public law on <br>
operation of ICANN policies. Would these examples
qualify to be <br>
considered under this or not? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A note on process -- it is very important that
we focus on creating <br>
written material. In our calls, we should be
working on and working <br>
from these written materials. Ultimately,
these writings will feed <br>
into our deliverable. Put another way, you
should focus your <br>
contributions on adding to the drafts
(currently, the "layers of <br>
jurisdiction" document), rather than on
relying solely on oral <br>
interventions in our calls -- after all we
have 168 hours in a week, <br>
and only 1 hour for our call. <br>
<br>
<br>
I agree. Calls can only help confirm or resolve
some outstanding issues, <br>
and lay further directions. What we can accomplish
in writing we should <br>
do. In that regard, I also think that to th extent
issues can be <br>
addressed and resolved in email exchanges here
they best be done so... <br>
<br>
Thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I look forward to our upcoming call. <br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Greg <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list <br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank"><mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org></a>
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">_______________________________________________
<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>