<div dir="ltr"><span><span><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Parmainder,</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">I do not understand your argument.</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">what
are the objectives to provide immunity to ICANN</span></p></li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">What
we mean by ICANN; Its 20 Board’s members or its 16 elected Board’s or the
entire ICANN including all staff?</span></p></li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">You
said , quote</span></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt"><font face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">“I
am sure that jurisdictional immunity can be structured in a manner that it does
not affect th required judicial processes around accountability enforcement,
and two, accountability enforcement processes are in any case private law
issues and a jurisdiction can be specifically chosen for its enforcement
(preferably US jurisdiction</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><font size="3">).” </font></span></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt"><font face="Calibri">Unquote</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">May you
kindly provide a valid legal argument that it does not affect th required
judicial processes around accountability enforcement?<br>
What are the precedence in this regard?</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#000000"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">Kavouss </span><span lang="EN-US"><span><font size="3"> </font></span></span></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><span><span><br></span></span></div></span></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-10-30 11:54 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>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_2723896672825521373moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 30 October 2016 03:55 PM,
Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Yes, Kavouss, I fully understand and accept it, all of us take time
coming out of our specific 'locations' into what can become a real
global dialogue oriented to global public interest. But we have
time, and I am sure we will reach there. And thanks for the below
cut-pastes, very useful. parminder <br><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span> On Saturday 29
October 2016 07:37 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_2723896672825521373m_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="m_2723896672825521373h5"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_2723896672825521373m_2844411065635315815WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul
Rosenzweig</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@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</span></a></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></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></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></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></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.com<wbr>/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"></span></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </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_2723896672825521373m_2844411065635315815moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a>
[<a class="m_2723896672825521373m_2844411065635315815moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@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_2723896672825521373m_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</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Friday 28 October 2016
07:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:</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></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>
</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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul
Rosenzweig</span></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@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a></span></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></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></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></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></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.com<wbr>/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</a>
</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </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="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@icann<wbr>.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">--MM</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_2723896672825521373_m_2844411065635315815__MailEndCompose"></a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></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@icann<wbr>.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.or<wbr>g/litigation.php</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Cheers</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Jorge</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></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@icann<wbr>.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-CH"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-CH" style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________</pre>
<pre>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list</pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>