<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">Thanks </font><font face="Verdana">Greg, </font><font
face="Verdana">for your detailed responses . My comments are
below, and I dont think I would have much to say on these items
after that. </font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 18 October 2016 12:26 AM,
Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Some follow-up on the
hypotheticals below, removing my rapporteur hat for the
purpose, but still trying to use objective legal analysis,
rather than seeking any particular result.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:54 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Milton,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Thanks for your engagement with
these issues</font><font face="Verdana"> . Some
responses below. <br>
</font></p>
<span class="gmail-">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234moz-cite-prefix">On
Tuesday 11 October 2016 10:21 PM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><span>1.<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times
new roman""> </span></span>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.<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><span
style="color:windowtext">MM: I don’t think
that’s a problem for ICANN. It’s a problem
for the entity that was delegated .XXX.
Since XXX holds a tiny sliver of the
domain name market, even in the porn
space, this is a very remote risk.</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Is there not problem even if .xxx was not a US
company owned, which has no reason to like/ accept being
governed by US laws? Milton, when we frame regimes for
rule of law, and of justice, we do not say, well that is
small fry, a small 'sliver of the market', rules and
justice has to be the same for all - small or big. It
is a question of principle -- can US law force ICANN
polices, or their operationalisation ? If they can, as
you seem to agree here, it is problem that we must find
a solution to.<br>
<br>
Annex 12 says "At this point in the
CCWG-Accountability’s work, the main issues that need to
be investigated within Work Stream 2 relate to the
influence that I<i><b>CANN ́s existing jurisdiction may
have on the actual operation of policies </b></i>and
accountability mechanisms." (emphasis added)<br>
<br>
This is directly an issue where ICANN's existing
jurisdiction has influence on actual operation of its
policies -- in this case its policies under which .xxx
was delegated. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: If .xxx was not a US company, but
it does business in the US, it subjects itself to US
laws; that has nothing to do with ICANN.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What it has to do with ICANN is the question about a court deciding
whether ICANN should or should not have delegated .xxx . A judgement
that could adversely impact ICANN in making and implementing its
policies (an express mandate of this group). This court case is not
just about how .xxx works, it is as much about the action of
delegation of .xxx by ICANN - . An action that can be nullified by
the court, which will make a travesty of ICANN's role as a global
governance body, which cannot be subject to one country's law.
Remember that causes of action in the case are also against ICANN,
and any action arising from the court case that makes ICANN reverse
an act of operationalsing its DNS policies is direct interference in
its work. It also directly related to the mandate of this group
which is to look into jurisdictional issues that could have impact
on actual operation of ICANN's policies'. To repeat, I am not at all
bothered about how the court could possibly force .xxx to act in any
particular way, I am only bothered by how it can force ICANN to act,
and that only a US court can do bec ICANN is in the US.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> Some things are unclear from your
hypothetical: </font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">1. Is the US government the plaintiff
alleging effects in US commerce, or is the plaintiff a
private party that alleges that it has been harmed by
.xxx's anticompetitive acts? <br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff">it is private parties, but one that has
brought a case not only against .xxx but also against ICANN. You
need to focus on this latter fact. Forget about the .xx owner. <br>
</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">2. What actions by .xxx have
allegedly violated competition laws? Have they
engaged in price fixing or bid rigging or predatory
pricing or price discrimination? <br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We need not go into looking into the merits of the case here. What
is salient is that ICANN has been sued on three counts -- "<font
face="serif"><font style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">a
Section 1 claim for conspiracy in restraint of trade; a Section
2
claim for conspiracy to monopolize; and a Section 2 claim for
conspiracy to attempt to monopolize". The court will decide if
these allegations against ICANN hold, and accordingly can make
it act in ways </font></font><font face="serif"><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">different</font></font><font
face="serif"><font style="font-size: 12pt" size="3"> than it has
in this case. This is a direct interference in a global
governance role of ICANN (again, lets forget about .xxx registry
owner)</font></font>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">3. If this was unilateral activity,
what is the product market in which .xxx has monopoly
power or sufficient market power for this to be an
antitrust violation? (As Milton points out, the
answer is likely to be "none," as individual TLDs are
extremely unlikely to be considered "markets" and .xxx
would have only a small sliver of the total SLD
market, and thus would not be capable of violating the
antitrust laws. That is why Milton mentioned that
.xxx was "small fry." Indeed antitrust laws are not
applied equally to companies with small market shares
and large market shares, nor should they be; companies
with small market shares have no market power, and
thus can do things like price below cost, that
companies with high market shares and market power
cannot do (e.g., a company with market power pricing
below cost for a sustained period of time in order to
drive smaller competitors from the market is engaged
in "predatory pricing," a company with a small market
share pricing below cost for a sustained period of
time is committing business suicide or sacrificing
profit for market share, but they are not violating
the antitrust laws.) <br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, you are arguing about the merit of the case, which I have no
desire to. The court h<a
href="http://domainincite.com/10149-court-rules-youporn-can-sue-icann-for-alleged-xxx-antitrust-violations">as
taken the case on file and dismissed ICANN's appeal to dismiss the
case</a>, and has asserted that US anti-trust laws apply on ICANN
generally, and specifically in this matter. That is enough for me.
If you and Milton think that the case is not made out, you should
argue before the court. The court will test ICANN's delegation
policies with regards US laws and let it know what it can do or not
do... If this is not juridical interference on ICANN's policy role,
I cannot understand what would be. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">4. If this was collusive activity,
with whom were they colluding, and in what market, and
are they co-defendants (and if not, why not)? <br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, these are matters to be argued before the court. You can
hardly expect me to begin arguing the plaintiff's case here. Just
note that the court has ruled on prima facie admissibility of the
collusion etc allegations, which simply means the decision could go
either way. If in this particular case, with the burden of the facts
being so and so, it actually goes ICANN's way, in another similar
case it could go against. That 'fact' alone is important for the
present discussion. <br>
<font color="#0000ff"></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">5. Are you assuming that the only way
.xxx was brought into US court is because ICANN
"issued" the gTLD, and that every other test for <i>in
personam</i> jurisdiction failed?</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, I have no problems where .xxx registry owners are taken; i have
a problem solely with ICANN's act of global governance being brought
to a US court, and a prima facie case made out. This itself makes
the case for doing everything to immunise ICANN from US law, or any
other single county law, in matters that are about its global
governance function. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> Since the "minimum contacts" for <i>in
personam </i>jurisdiction are quite low
(transacting business within the state; committing a
violation of law in the state, committing a violation
of law outside the state that causes injury within the
state, or having or using real property within the
state.), it is extremely unlikely that .xxx would fail
them. If it did fail these test, it's essentially
impossible for their to be a competition law
violation, since the minimum contacts test is aligned
with the type of activity that would be required to
show that an antitrust violation occurred. So, if a
plaintiff attempted to hail .xxx into court in the US,
but there was no activity that could serve as the
basis of jurisdiction or a claim, the case would be
tossed, and it's reasonably likely the plaintiff and
their lawyers would be sanctioned. </font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">On the other , if .xxx has violated US
antitrust laws (which would require both business
activity and harm in the US), why shouldn't they be
subject to suit (by the government or a private party)
in the US? .xxx is just a Registry business; it's not
entitled to any particular immunities.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Let them be subject to US or whatever law, my problem, and I repeat,
is entirely and exclusively about ICANN being subject to US law... I
think there is a clear difference, which is what we need to focus
on. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">In the end, I see no connection
between this hypothetical and ICANN's policies or
ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or HQ location.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff">Greg, You have suddenly jumped form a
discussion that only discussed .xxx registry owner, and not ICANN,
to an implication about ICANN... Working backwards, to get to such
an implication, you should have been focussing on the fact that
ICANN is hauled in the court, and prima facie case for possible
cause of action against ICANN made out. </font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"><font
color="#0000ff"> <br>
</font> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><span
style="color:windowtext"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><span>2.<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times
new roman""> </span></span>Same
about .africa.<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><span
style="color:windowtext">Same response.<br>
</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Same response from me as well - other than that
here, unlike for .xxx, those who claim the gTLD, and
thus will be affected by an adverse decision of the US
court, are parties not belonging to the US and thus
should not be dictated to by US courts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: In the .africa case, DCA sued
ICANN and ZACR in the US. They could have chosen to
try and sue elsewhere, since there are other places
where ICANN can be sued, but they chose the US. <br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">This is not at all true.
ICANN cannot be profitably sued anywhere other than in US...
Effective and meaningful court case should have levers of
implementation of possible decision at hand, which are only
available only in the US with regard to ICANN. (I distinctly
remember ICANN being called to a court in another country and it
going there and saying, sir, we are not subject to your
jurisdiction, but I cannot recollect exactly where.)</font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> DCA is seeking adjudication by a
court, and they chose the US courts, so this is not in
any way a situation in which DCA does not want to be
"dictated to by US courts." </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">There is no other
country's court it could have gone to for usefully challenging
an action of an US non profit, that ICANN is. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> As for ZACR, they could have sought
to be removed from the case due to lack of minimum
contacts with the US, and they may well have succeeded
-- but then they would be on the sidelines in a case
where their ability to run .africa was at stake, </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">Which was at stake only
because a US court can actually force ICANN's hand, unlike that
of any other country. They would not have cared to even get an
lawyer if the same case had been brought up in Vietnam. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">and that wouldn't be a very good
choice. It's an essential factor of being a defendant
that you don't get to choose the court in which you're
sued, at least not initially</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">ICANN does, it has said
in other countries' courts, sorry, but I am not taking it, I am
not subject to your jurisdiction, and the courts could do
nothing... </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> -- you can try to get out of the
case, or have the case dismissed for jurisdictional
reasons, or have the case removed to a different court
with a greater interest in the case, after you are
sued. </font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">Again, I see no connection between
this hypothetical (or actual case) and ICANN's
policies or ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or
HQ location.</font></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"><font
color="#0000ff"> <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#0000ff"> </font></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><span>3.<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times
new roman""> </span></span>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?<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><span
style="color:windowtext">See above. Not an
issue for ICANN. Most of these court cases
are between private parties, but even
regulations or antitrust actions would be
directed against the holder of the gTLD,
not ICANN. Only if ICANN itself were
accused of fostering a monopoly would it
be the target of such litigation. </span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Again, you seem to be fully unaffected by how
global parties - companies, and people - who expect
ICANN to be a global governance body and thus do thing
just-fully, and they able to partake equally of the
rights and benefits of a global domain name governance
systems are unable to fulfil this legitimate, and
democratic, expectation. If this means nothing to you,
and only such actions that directly affect ICANN's
organisation etc are meaningful, I have not much more to
say here... My principal case is of how ICANN's current
jurisdiction affects the global DNS, its governance, its
legitimacy, justfullness, etc -- and not just now it
affects ICANN's organisation.<br>
<br>
Perhaps lets separate these two issues then, treat them
separately. (1), impact of ICANN jurisdiction on ICANN's
organisation, (2) its impact on ICANN governance and
operation of global DNS, including allocation of gTLDs/
ccTLDs, and managing the relationship with them. <br>
<br>
For the me (2) is by far more important, but if (1) is
your focus, we can consider them both, separately.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: First, it's not obvious that we
will be seeing many court cases around new gTLD
registries. Second, if there are court cases, I
assume that the plaintiffs will bring them in a
jurisdiction where the registry can be "found", like
any other business.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">That would be
legitimate and fine. We are talking about what would not be
legitimate. And that is a US plaintiff taking the advantage of
the company that actually delegated the gTLD being in the US -
that is ICANN - to get a ruling employing US law -- which has
been developed and works for US public interest (and mostly,
rightly so). </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> I doubt they will be sued in the US
solely on the basis that the company that granted them
the right to operate the gTLD is located here; and if
suit is brought here, it's not at all likely that this
basis for jurisdiction will succeed</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">Like the court is doing
in the .xxx case, a US court will still take on the examination
of the actions of ICANN in issuing the gTLD, and be ready to
give its decision on it which can force ICANN to act as per the
decision. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> (look at how the .ir situation has
resolved, and consider that .ir was involved as a TLD
asset, not as a registry business). If there's an
adverse judgment, ICANN typically wouldn't be involved</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">As said above, there are
three possible causes of action against ICANN in the .xxx case,
and therefore ICANN is directly involved, and will be made to
act as the court decides. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> -- unless the judgment called for a
transfer of the gTLD, and that would only occur in
very limited circumstances.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Or annulment of the gTLD ... I am not sure why you say it could only
be in limited circumstances. And even a few times are enough, for it
to be unacceptable incursion of US jurisdiction on ICANN's global
governance function. Further, law is made to be observed and not
violated - its power and very existence is not counted just by
instances of its violation. Its very existence, of US jursidiciton
over it, will make ICANN - it already does - act in certain ways
and not others, which is problematic enough for me. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> If that were the case, it wouldn't
matter where the case was brought -- the winning party
would request that ICANN honor the court's ruling that
the plaintiff and not the defendant was entitled to
the gTLD. ICANN could agree, or it could contest the
award.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">ICANN will simply
say to the court in India or Nigeria, please mind your own
business, that is if it even bothers to respond. i see no
possibility of ICANN accepting a ruling of any other country's
court than of the US on matters of its policy implementation . </font><br>
</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> If the case was brought in France,
ICANN could contest it in the French court.
Alternatively, the plaintiff could seek to enforce the
judgment by suing ICANN in the US (but this would
happen in any jurisdiction where ICANN could be sued
-- nothing unique to the US). Again, I see no issue.
There was a private dispute between two parties,
brought somewhere in the world. This has nothing to
do with ICANN's current place of incorporation or HQ.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#330033">I am not talking of private disputes, but those
which invoke public law, like anti-trust law, consumer protection,
privacy related, and so on...</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><span
style="color:windowtext"></span></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><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>
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Now,
you have hit on a real issue. I believe
however that NTIA has taken some precautions
here, but I don’t recall what they are. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> NTIA's 'precautions' - even more so, the
unrecollected ones :) - are meaningless for non US
people/ businesses who really are looking to get out of
NTIA's 'protection' - isnt that all this oversight
transition is supposed to be about ?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: I assume you are referring to
"great deterioration of relationships" between ICANN
and the US, since "great deterioration of
relationships" between a country and</font></div>
<font color="#0000ff">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">the
US is the reason one needs an OFAC license in the
first place.</div>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">I think there is
a confusion here. ICANN has to take an OFAC license to do
business with a country that is on US's 'deteriorated
relationships' list -- it has nothing to do with the nature of
relationships between US and ICANN. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font color="#0000ff">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
First, this is truly hypothetical -- OFAC licenses are
granted based on their merits, not on relationships.
Second, without examining the precautions Milton
mentions, it's premature to dismiss them. <br>
</div>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">As far as i remember,
Milton never mentioned any precautions. I could equally say to
you, without even having heard what the precautions are, it may
be premature to accept them to have fully made the case :) </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font color="#0000ff">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
Third, if the US government did in fact withhold an
OFAC license from ICANN out of spite, it would
severely damage the US's ability to serve as an
appropriate home for ICANN, and could lead to
legitimate calls for an examination of ICANN's
location; this serves as a very significant deterrent
against any such behavior.</div>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As said, this is not about US relationships with ICANN. Secondly, we
have heard enough of this logic - US will not abuse its positions
because it will reduce its stature in the eyes of the global public
and this would stretch its legitimacy to carry on in this exalted
position. This logic is so weak that I do not want to even respond
to it. (Could we not say a similar thing say about ICANN's board, or
practically every position of authority in the world, whereby no
measures against possible abuses will ever be required?)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">As
to what the oversight transition was supposed to be
about: The purpose of the IANA transition was not to
make ICANN no longer subject to the rule of law under
US law. </div>
<span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It was
about removing the unique relationship between the US
and ICANN embodied in the IANA contract, and allowing
the global multistakeholder community to oversee
ICANN's activities, rather than the US government.</span><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> <br>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">I just said that for a
process aimed at ridding ICANN of NTIA oversight, continue to be
relying on some un-recollected NTIA precautions would be
strange. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font color="#0000ff"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Indeed, the
"enforceability" aspects of the Empowered Community's
actions </span><u
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">depend</u><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> on ICANN being
subject to the jurisdiction of courts, and count on
the availability of US courts to enforce any action by
the Empowered Community where ICANN refused to comply.
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
If ICANN no longer had any contacts with the US,
then ICANN would still need to be subject to being
sued in court somewhere for the accountability
mechanisms to work fully. <br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">It is possible to work
out possibilities in international law - that is once we begin
exploring it. There are other ways as well to achieve it, while
ensuring that US public laws cannot interfere with ICANN's
policy making or implementation processes. For it, we need to
first focus on the latter being our key imperative. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font color="#0000ff"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
I understand that there are some who would like to
remove ICANN from the United States. If, now or in
the future, ICANN cannot carry out its policies or
the accountability mechanisms do not work because
of ICANN's location, and the only remedy is moving
ICANN so that it can function, then there are
methods to seek such a change inherent in iCANN's
governance structure (i.e., methods for changing the
Articles, where ICANN's jurisdiction of
incorporation is set forth, and the Bylaws, where
ICANN's HQ location is set forth). If this subgroup
determines that there is an issue where ICANN is
currently unable to carry out policies or the
accountability mechanisms are impeded, we will look
at all potential remedies (and all of the
consequences of such potential remedies).</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
All the cases I had put forward concern situations where very
likely, in case of very possible adverse court judgement for
instance, ICANN will be unable to carry out its policies, in the
manner that they have been developed in a global manner, and which
therefore should only be answerable to a suitably global mechanism.
I think that these cases require us to look into possible remedies,
with regard to the problems with US jurisdiction over ICANN. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br>
<span class="gmail-">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><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)?<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM:
This would require legislation, because
nothing in the existing Communications Act
gives the FCC any authority over DNS or IP
addressing. So this is just another example
of “what if the US legislates to regulate
ICANN in some way?” Which of course is a
risk if ICANN were in ANY jurisdiction. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> This is not true -- in the same way as, without
any new legislation, FCC revised its stand on
forbearance over seeing Internet as a telecom utility,
and made it title 2. 'Forbearance' has this legal
meaning of legal authority being there but not being
exercised -- FCC's chair has clearly used the term
'forbear' in recent utterances about FCC's authority
over Internet addresses. And in any case, what if as you
say such a thing will require a legislation from the US
legislature -- that is no comfort to non USians/ <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: I'm not going to wade into the
complexities of FCC policy and scope. If the US or
any country or group of countries (e.g., the EU)
actually sought to usurp ICANN's role in DNS and IP
addressing, that would be something to deal with and
consider remedies at that time. As Milton notes, this
is a risk regardless of ICANN's location (and a risk
that is not necessarily tied to ICANN's physical
location). </font></div>
<font color="#0000ff"> </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
This is because you seem to have only two possibilities in mind,
ICANN under US jurisdiction, or ICANN under some other country
jurisdiction. That is not the remedy. Remedy is of ICANN being
put under international jurisdiction, or ICANN with full
jurisdictional immunity expressly provided by US, for which proper
legal framework as well as precedents exist in the US. In these
cases, the mentioned risks would not exist. </font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><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?<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM:
These dangers are greatly diminished
post-transition. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> I see now way how the danger of any US executive
authority exercising mandate over ICANN have diminished
post transition other than your word for it..... And
then I do not want them diminished (even that they
havent), I want them extinguished. Statutory US bodies
need to and will do whatever they can to further their
policies and law, and would order any US body
accordingly - nothing has changed, one may just be
imagining that it has. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: This is far too generalized to be
considered as a scenario. What agencies do you think
have a scope of authority over ICANN, and under what
legislation? If it's DOJ/FTC under antitrust law,
this is actually an accountability feature and not a
bug.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">Yes, similar. You
may consider subjection to US law as an accountability feature,
but I do not, and I expect all non USians to think so... Would
you Greg be fine if your legal firm was subject to Indian
corporate law, legal profession regulatory mechanisms, and such
regimes? I would like an honest answer. I often ask this from
people from the US but they never respond. If you take sincere
10 mins to really reflect, and try to respond to this, we may
well have solved the jurisdiction issue :) </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> The intent is that the antitrust law
be available in the event ICANN allegedly violates US
antitrust laws. (The whole "antitrust immunity"
discussion was completely misguided.) </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">Why should ICANN be able
to be punished for violating US anti trust laws, but not India's
or Ghana's??? Or other social justice laws of these countries?
The injustice and unfairness of this is so patent that I am not
sure why are we even discussing it. We perhaps really need to
raise our democratic quotient. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> As for .pharmacy (or other TLDs)
having certain safeguards, that is entirely a policy
and business decision by that TLD. </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">No, it is a decision of
ICANN and that tld together -- ICANN approves or disapproves of
such 'safeguards' in the gtld policies . ICANN can accordingly
be ordered around by that particular sectoral regulator in the
US, FDA in this case. It can also interfere through its
jurisdiction over the group that owns .pharmacy, which happens
to be US based. But if that group had been non US, FDA could
still simply had got its way by ordering ICANN's actions. It is
this what is not acceptable. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">The new gTLD program was intended to
foster different business models, so this should be
considered a successful implementation. Technically,
it could be "challenged" -- but under what cause of
action? What law is being violated that could lead to
either US government enforcement or a private party
action? And what does ICANN's location have to do
with the registry being capable of being sued in the
US, since any business or harm in the US is sufficient
to sue the registry in US courts, regardless of
ICANN's location?</font></div>
<font color="#0000ff"> </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It can be challenged under so many provisions of US law and
regulations, and by so many of its agencies, that I can not even
begin to count them. See .pharmacy and FDA example above for
instance... If you want more, I could provide them ... It could be
about .hotels, or a possible .cars, and so on.....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"><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.<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM:
Don’t agree we are sitting on a volcano, but
do agree there are issues that need to be
anticipated, a kind of “stress test”</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Yes, thanks, exactly that. We need to follow
through each of these scenarios to possible logical
conclusions - looking at all plausible ways they can go.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">GS: First, I don't see the
hypotheticals regarding suing third parties in US
courts as really "stress tests" of ICANN's location,
since there will almost inevitably be other bases for
being able to sue that party in a US court, </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I said many times, I am not bothered about any 'that party' being
sued or not, or of someone using ICANN to sue it or not - I am
talking of cases where ICANN itself is sued and is the butt of
probable cause of action. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">given the similarity between the
minimum contacts required for that purpose and minimum
requirements to have a viable cause of action. As
such, ICANN's location simply doesn't seem to be
relevant to those scenarios. <font color="#330033"><br>
</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">Since I am
focussed only on ICANN being sued, and forced to act in certain
ways contrary to policy developed by a global mechanism, the
only thing important to me is that ICANN can fruitfully only be
sued in the US, and in no other jurisdiction. That is a plain
and simple fact. </font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> In those scenarios where the US
government hypothetically seeks to interfere with
ICANN policy or with ICANN's accountability mechanism,
I think the overall "stress test" is whether ICANN
could take steps <u>at that time</u> to oppose such
actions or, failing that, seek to remove itself
completely from US jurisdiction</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#330033">Yes, here finally
we have come to the only point that I am making.... Yes, that
would be the stress test, and lets do it.... All the 5-6
scenarios that I posed, what you have called as 'hypotheticals'
leads to possible situations where ICANN will have to, on orders
of a court or other legitimate US authority, change its actions
that otherwise arise from policies developed in a global
fashion..... I dont see how ICANN can extricate itself in such
situations - but if you or others have suggestions, Id be happy
to hear them.</font><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"> (and whether moving out of the US
would have that intended effect)? I'm not aware of
any reason that ICANN could not try to do so, but it
would need the global multistakeholder community's
agreement to do so. A related question is whether the
Empowered Community, as the agent of the global
multistakeholder community, could force ICANN to move
out of the US against ICANN's will -- and whether
there are safeguards against such an action so that it
would only occur if there were a proper basis for such
a drastic act? It's something we may need to look at,
but based on the escalating powers of the Empowered
Community (up to and including "spilling" the board, I
think the community has the necessary power to move
ICANN under such exigent circumstances.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But we should be able to agree that mature and responsible
organisations normally are prepared for such possible (I say, very
likely, but even if it were less than very likely) eventualities,
and do not begun preparing once they come to pass. So let me suggest
one some possible preparation, which can considerably address most
of our jurisdictional problems without actually moving ICANN out of
US. <br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><font face="serif"><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">ICANN
can institute a fundamental bylaw that its global governance
processes cannot be interfered with by US jurisdiction. If any
such
interference is encountered, parametres of which can be
clearly
pre-defined, a process of shifting of ICANN to another
jurisdiction
will automatically set in. A redundant set-up – with HQ, root
file
maintenance system, etc – will be kept ready as a redundancy
in
another jurisdiction for this purpose. Chances are that with
the
knowledge of this bylaw and a fully plausible exit option
being kept
ready, no US state agency, including its courts. will consider
it
fruitful to try and enforce their writ. This system could
therefore
act in perpetuity as a guarantee against jurisdictional
interference
without actually having ICANN to move out of the US. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: -2.5cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%">
<br>
</p>
How does it sound?<br>
<br>
Thanks again for this really useful engagement. parminder
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURsyVkU9R-QwHU0HCYYOJ9QXAtDt1XV5CxzQpZYnUzREQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font
color="#0000ff">Greg </font></div>
<font color="#0000ff">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>
</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font></span><span class="gmail-"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234WordSection1">
<div
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt
solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:41.25pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_-2654243898812256234moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>