<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Parminder</div><div>I tend to agree with your logic and valid arguments.However, some of our colleagues who very well understand and agree to your reasoning, insist on their initial thoughts as they have be under the influence of their local law and have certain difficulties to think otherwise.</div><div>On the other hand, I admire your follow up action as you are the only one continuing to discuss, examine, analyse and trying to get some workable things out of it..Other CCWG have taken a silent position which is pity .</div><div>For ease of référence I have made a simple cut and paste the exchanged views on the matter. It would be good that people go through that to find out whether every thi<font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">ng said is consistent and coherent
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Mueller,
Milton L </font><a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=fr" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff" face="Calibri">via</font></a><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"> <a href="http://icann.org">icann.org</a> </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">28 oct.
(Il y a 2 jours)</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">À Jorge.Cancio,
ws2-jurisdicti</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">One thing to keep in mind about these court
cases. The litigation concerns such things as whether ICANN was in breach of
contract, whether it committed fraud, and whether it needs to be ordered to
follow the IRP decision. It does _<i>not</i>_ put an American court in the
position of deciding which of two applicants for the .AFRICA domain are the
more worthy. In other words, the U.S. court in this case is not the policy
maker, it is a settler of legal disputes among contracting or would-be
contracting parties. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="DE-CH" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">--MM</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><b><span lang="DE-CH" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000">Schweighofer Erich </font></span></b><b><span style="line-height:115%"><a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=fr" target="_blank"><span lang="DE-CH"><font color="#0000ff">via</font></span></a></span></b><b><span lang="DE-CH" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000"> <a href="http://icann.org">icann.org</a> </font></span></b></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">28 oct.
(Il y a 2 jours)</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">À Milton, Jorge.Cancio, ws2-jurisdicti. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Thanks for this important comment. BUT: formal
procedures decide the outcome of legal disputes, even if sufficient respect for
the applicable law and autonomy of ICANN is accepted by the Court. It reminds
me of the Cadi case here at the ECJ. Formally, UN law was accepted but for <i>ordre
public</i> reasons not given full effect. Disputes must be settled in a proper
forum and forum shopping must be avoided. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="DE-CH" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Erich Schweighofer</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><b><span lang="DE-CH" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000">Paul Rosenzweig </font></span></b><b><span style="line-height:115%"><a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=fr" target="_blank"><span lang="DE-CH"><font color="#0000ff">via</font></span></a></span></b><b><span lang="DE-CH" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000"> <a href="http://icann.org">icann.org</a> </font></span></b></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">28 oct.
(Il y a 2 jours)</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">À Milton, Jorge.Cancio, ws2-jurisdicti. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">To which one needs to add that the principal
reason the case is in California is that California is specified as the venue
(and also as the substantive decisional law) in ICANN’s contracts. As a
general matter ICANN is free to specify that the next such dispute be
determined by an arbital panel in London (as an example) if it wishes, or using
Swiss (another example) concepts of procedural due process. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"> Paul</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Paul Rosenzweig</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">On Friday 28 October 2016 06:33 AM, Mueller,
Milton L wrote:</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">One thing to keep in mind about these court
cases. The litigation concerns such things as whether ICANN was in breach of
contract, whether it committed fraud, and whether it needs to be ordered to
follow the IRP decision. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Milton, not sure what you mean by the plural
"these court cases". Other cases in US courts like .xxx and .ir are/
were of a very different quality and clearly involved issues very different
from 'breach of contract'. Further, even the .africa case involves public law
issues of unfair competition and fraud (yes you mention it, but this does not
fall in private law category as breach of contract does), which are
determined not as per what the contract between the two private parties was but
what is the law of the US state. which applies to everyone in the US, without
any choice. <br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">It does _<i>not</i>_ put an American court in the
position of deciding which of two applicants for the .AFRICA domain are the
more worthy.</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><br><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">
In fact if you see the initial judgements, not only the public law issues of
fraud and unfair competition are considered, the court explicitly applies the
'public interest' test. I would think that means it is ready to see which
side's contentions are 'more worthy'. Further, I, as a non US citizen would not
be ready to go by a US court's judgement of what is in public interest, especially
if one of the parties be a US entity and other not. <br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">In other words, the U.S. court in this case is
not the policy maker,</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><br><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">
It is US policies that concretise US public interest, which is not only put
into law but, as shown above, US courts are ready to freely use the 'public
interest' criterion (as all courts do).... Now, the whole point of democracy is
to establish just and equitable institutions to establish 'the public interest'
and put it into policies and law. It is not for other countries' courts - a
part of that country's democratic set up -- to determine 'the public interest'.
<br>
<br>
The basic issue here for me is democracy, but I have the feeling that, this
often taken for granted right of all people, is not an issue that concerns much
of the discussion here. This thing is being treated more like we were in a
purely commercial arena, just determining mutual rights of contracting parties
alone. That is not true, nor appropriate. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"> </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">On Friday 28 October 2016 07:39 PM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">To which one needs to add that the principal
reason the case is in California is that California is specified as the venue
(and also as the substantive decisional law) in ICANN’s contracts. As a
general matter ICANN is free to specify that the next such dispute be determined
by an arbital panel in London (as an example) if it wishes, or using Swiss
(another example) concepts of procedural due process. </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><br><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">
This may be true for issues of breach of contract, but not for issues of public
law, like anti competitive practices, or fraud. In the latter set, there is no
choice of law available. ICANN as US not profit is subject to US law and can be
sued under it, or the state may take suo moto action.<br>
<br>
As from tis discussion, It has been clear during the working of this group that,
in terms of the mandate of this group to give recs on the jurisdiction issue,
there are two very different set of issues that come up for consideration which
will require very different kind of recs.<br>
<br>
One set is of such issues where a choice of jurisdiction is available. With
regard to these issues, this subgroup has to determine how this available
choice should be exercised.<br>
<br>
The second set is of such issues where no choice of application of law is
available, and the law of the place of incorporation and HQ applies. This is
the trickly part, and we have to determine (1) what kind of problems may faced
in the future, (2) how serious they are, their ramifications etc, (3) what, if
anything at all, can be done with regard to this issue (4) what are the benefits
and drawbacks of different possible options, (5) considering all these
elements, is it worth recommending one or more options. <br>
<br>
It will be most useful is our work is organised in line with the kind of
recommendations that we may make, which I see is as above. I do not see why our
current documents keep these two different kinds of issues mixed, which admit
of very different 'jurisdictional' treatment. Neither can I understand the
logic of trying to eliminate right away some possible options that come much
later in the discussion, instead of leading a structured discussion towards
them. <br>
<br>
</font></span></b><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">parminder</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">On Saturday 29 October 2016 07:37 PM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
<br>
</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong
Paraminder. The fact that ICANN is a US corproaration has nothing to do
with its subject to public law in any way different than the fact that it has
an office in Istabul subjects it to Turkish public law. To the extent
ICANN operates as a coroporation it is subject to the public law of every
jurisdiction where it operates. It can be sued for anti-competitive
behavior in India today, if someone were so minded, provided that an allegation
of violating Indian law could be raised.</font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"calibri","sans-serif""><br><font color="#000000">
Paul, on the contrary I'd request you, lets talk on facts, and not fanciful
notions.<br>
<br>
It is plain wrong to say that US public law applies on ICANN in the same way as
Turkish or Indian law does. I dont know why are you even proposing such a
completely unsustainable notion. I am not sure how to express my strong
feelings against such a falsehood but let me try this: I am fine if this group
makes a clear determination that "US public law applies to ICANN in
exactly the same manner as of any other country" and writes it down as a
finding in its report. I will like to see how a group of such well respected
people and experts says such a thing. Of course, I am saying this bec I know
that the group would never formally enter such a determination.<br>
<br>
But now since you have made this claim, and I do remember you have made it a
few times earlier, and no one else has refuted it, Let me make a few points,
but very briefly, bec I really do not consider this a serious proposition at
all. <br>
<br>
I gave many examples of how US public law can interfere with ICANN's policy
operation. Can you provide me with corresponding ways in which another
country's law can interfere in the same or even similar way.... I do not want
to bore the group by re listing all those examples, which I have done more than
once in this discussion. <br>
<br>
A US court can change the decision of delegation of any gTLD, wherever the
registry may be based. It can also impose the wisdom of US law over the domain
allocation conditions of a gTLD. This it can do by direct fiat to ICANN. <br>
<br>
Other countries can interfere in operation of the DNS within their
jurisdiction. They can direct registries and registrars located within their
jurisdiction to act or not act in certain ways. US, on the other hand, can
directly force the hand of ICANN in terms of its entire global operation,
policy making as well as implementation work, including changes in the root
file.<br>
<br>
I work in the management of an Indian non profit, which does multi country
research projects. It would be most astonishing for me to hear that my non
profit is equally subject to non Indian jurisdictions as it is to the Indian
law. I am quite painfully aware that this is not a fact, not even close to it.
For instance, when we do multi country project coordinated and run from India,
I fully know how Indian law applies on the entirety of our actions and
therefore of the overall project, whereas the courts of another country where a
research team may do research for/ with us can interfere within that county for
that part of the project. it is so simple and commonly understood, I wonder why
am I even arguing it. <br>
<br>
Please lets not trash other people's important concerns in such of hand-ish manner...
US's public law being applied unilaterally on the ICANN is a real problem with
regard to the latter's global governance function. </font></span><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:"calibri","sans-serif""><font color="#000000">Let us explore what we can do</font></span></b></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-10-30 10:53 GMT+01:00 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span>
On Saturday 29 October 2016 07:37 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_2844411065635315815WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I’m
sorry, but that’s just wrong Paraminder. The fact that
ICANN is a US corproaration has nothing to do with its
subject to public law in any way different than the fact
that it has an office in Istabul subjects it to Turkish
public law. To the extent ICANN operates as a coroporation
it is subject to the public law of every jurisdiction where
it operates. It can be sued for anti-competitive behavior
in India today, if someone were so minded, provided that an
allegation of violating Indian law could be raised.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Paul, on the contrary I'd request you, lets talk on facts, and not
fanciful notions.<br>
<br>
It is plain wrong to say that US public law applies on ICANN in the
same way as Turkish or Indian law does. I dont know why are you even
proposing such a completely unsustainable notion. I am not sure how
to express my strong feelings against such a falsehood but let me
try this: I am fine if this group makes a clear determination that
"US public law applies to ICANN in exactly the same manner as of any
other country" and writes it down as a finding in its report. I will
like to see how a group of such well respected people and experts
says such a thing. Of course, I am saying this bec I know that the
group would never formally enter such a determination.<br>
<br>
But now since you have made this claim, and I do remember you have
made it a few times earlier, and no one else has refuted it, Let me
make a few points, but very briefly, bec I really do not consider
this a serious proposition at all. <br>
<br>
I gave many examples of how US public law can interfere with ICANN's
policy operation. Can you provide me with corresponding ways in
which another country's law can interfere in the same or even
similar way.... I do not want to bore the group by re listing all
those examples, which I have done more than once in this discussion.
<br>
<br>
A US court can change the decision of delegation of any gTLD,
wherever the registry may be based. It can also impose the wisdom of
US law over the domain allocation conditions of a gTLD. This it can
do by direct fiat to ICANN. <br>
<br>
Other countries can interfere in operation of the DNS within their
jurisdiction. They can direct registries and registrars located
within their jurisdiction to act or not act in certain ways. US, on
the other hand, can directly force the hand of ICANN in terms of its
entire global operation, policy making as well as implementation
work, including changes in the root file.<br>
<br>
I work in the management of an Indian non profit, which does multi
country research projects. It would be most astonishing for me to
hear that my non profit is equally subject to non Indian
jurisdictions as it is to the Indian law. I am quite painfully aware
that this is not a fact, not even close to it. For instance, when we
do multi country project coordinated and run from India, I fully
know how Indian law applies on the entirety of our actions and
therefore of the overall project, whereas the courts of another
country where a research team may do research for/ with us can
interfere within that county for that part of the project. it is so
simple and commonly understood, I wonder why am I even arguing it. <br>
<br>
Please lets not trash other people's important concerns in such
offhand-ish manner... US's public law being applied unilaterally on
the ICANN is a real problem with regard to the latter's global
governance function. Let us explore what we can do about it..<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_2844411065635315815WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul
Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">O:
<a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">M:
<a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">VOIP:
<a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">My
PGP Key: <a href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">http://redbranchconsulting.<wbr>com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</span></a>
</span><u><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
<a class="m_2844411065635315815moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>
[<a class="m_2844411065635315815moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="m_2844411065635315815moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers
of Jurisdiction Document<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Friday 28 October 2016 07:39 PM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">To
which one needs to add that the principal reason the case
is in California is that California is specified as the
venue (and also as the substantive decisional law) in
ICANN’s contracts. As a general matter ICANN is free to
specify that the next such dispute be determined by an
arbital panel in London (as an example) if it wishes, or
using Swiss (another example) concepts of procedural due
process. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
This may be true for issues of breach of contract, but not for
issues of public law, like anti competitive practices, or
fraud. In the latter set, there is no choice of law available.
ICANN as US not profit is subject to US law and can be sued
under it, or the state may take suo moto action.<br>
<br>
As from tis discussion, It has been clear during the working
of this group that, in terms of the mandate of this group to
give recs on the jurisdiction issue, there are two very
different set of issues that come up for consideration which
will require very different kind of recs.<br>
<br>
One set is of such issues where a choice of jurisdiction is
available. With regard to these issues, this subgroup has to
determine how this available choice should be exercised.<br>
<br>
The second set is of such issues where no choice of
application of law is available, and the law of the place of
incorporation and HQ applies. This is the trickly part, and we
have to determine (1) what kind of problems may faced in the
future, (2) how serious they are, their ramifications etc, (3)
what, if anything at all, can be done with regard to this
issue (4) what are the benefits and drawbacks of different
possible options, (5) considering all these elements, is it
worth recommending one or more options. <br>
<br>
It will be most useful is our work is organised in line with
the kind of recommendations that we may make, which I see is
as above. I do not see why our current documents keep these
two different kinds of issues mixed, which admit of very
different 'jurisdictional' treatment. Neither can I understand
the logic of trying to eliminate right away some possible
options that come much later in the discussion, instead of
leading a structured discussion towards them. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul
Rosenzweig</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">O:
<a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">M:
<a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">VOIP:
<a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">My
PGP Key: <a href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/" target="_blank">http://redbranchconsulting.<wbr>com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mueller, Milton L<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>;
<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers
of Jurisdiction Document</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">One
thing to keep in mind about these court cases. The
litigation concerns such things as whether ICANN was in
breach of contract, whether it committed fraud, and
whether it needs to be ordered to follow the IRP decision.
It does _<i>not</i>_ put an American court in the position
of deciding which of two applicants for the .AFRICA domain
are the more worthy. In other words, the U.S. court in
this case is not the policy maker, it is a settler of
legal disputes among contracting or would-be contracting
parties. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">--MM</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_2844411065635315815__MailEndCompose"></a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>;
<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple
Layers of Jurisdiction Document</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Hi,
here’s the website about the „.africa“ issue I mentioned
in the chat: <a href="http://www.africainonespace.org/litigation.php" target="_blank">http://www.africainonespace.<wbr>org/litigation.php</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Cheers</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Jorge</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2016 20:59<br>
<b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of
Jurisdiction Document</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-CH"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-CH" style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>