<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hypothetical #1 will be discussed at tomorrow's subgroup call. I will post this as a Google doc in a couple of hours, but please review this email thread, and add to it if possible, before tomorrow's call.</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><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div style="font-size:12.8px"><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><a name="_GoBack"></a><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>
<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks for your views, Parminder.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'll look forward to everyone's responses to the hypothetical, the strawman responses, Parminder's response, and any other responses. If you are a participant in this group, it really behooves you to jump into this discussion.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I won't reply to Parminder's specific response; I'd rather that other members do that. However, I have a couple of "big picture" observations that I'd like to share, and see if people think there is merit in them (or not).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think there's an overarching premise or presumption that's being missed here. That is the presumption that ICANN should be subject to the rule of law; more specifically, that ICANN should be subject to antitrust laws and intellectual property laws and privacy laws and health laws and labor laws and civil rights laws and anti-corruption laws, etc., etc. -- all of the laws that make up a body of national law. As far as I know, these are laws that exist at a national level. There are treaties and conventions designed to harmonize the laws of different nations (and to deal with differences between those laws), but these are not in themselves laws that would apply to any entity. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It's my understanding that there is no "international law" that would impose these types of laws, or indeed the rule of law, on any entity such as ICANN. As such, it's my understanding that there is no "international law" that ICANN can be moved to.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On the other hand the treaties and conventions generally bring the laws of the signatory nations into fairly close harmony or at least coordination. As a result, the relevant laws of one signatory are not terribly different than that of another. Taking treaties, conventions, legal history, etc., all together, there is a fairly well-harmonized web of laws of different nations at the national level. (There are of course areas where there are greater differences, and even the smaller differences are not indistinguishable.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As mentioned above, the premise is that ICANN should be subject to the rule of law, and to the types of laws that exist at a national level. Further, that adherence to these laws is overall, a positive influence on keeping ICANN accountable and allowing ICANN to set and operate its policies. Thus, ICANN needs to be subject to the laws of some country. I'd be interested to see how comfortable (or uncomfortable) members of the subgroup are with that premise. (As a side note, this seems incompatible with the idea of "immunity.")</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">A further premise that implements the prior premise is that US law is a reasonable set of laws to be used for that purpose, and that US courts are reasonable venues for the resolution of disputes involving ICANN. More specifically, given the mandate of this Subgroup, the premise is that US law and courts are reasonably well suited to keeping ICANN accountable, and for the operation of ICANN's policies. I'd be interested to see how comfortable (or uncomfortable) members of the subgroup are with this premise. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">ICANN is, of course, subject to the laws of a number of other jurisdictions where it has a presence, and may be subject to litigation in those jurisdictions, but we can put that aside for the moment. Similarly, there may be other jurisdictions that are also reasonable for such use, and each would have their trade-offs with any other. But, unless we identify intractable problems with accountability or ICANN's ability to operate, I'm not sure whether that's relevant.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In looking at US law (or any other applicable national law), we would need to consider whether these laws are likely to interfere with efforts (including those of the multistakeholder community) to hold ICANN accountable, or with ICANN's ability to set and implement its policies. On the other hand, we would also need to consider whether these laws are likely to protect (and even enhance) efforts to hold ICANN accountable (including multistakeholder efforts), and to protect ICANN's ability to set and implement its policies.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In the abstract, without citing any law or any ICANN policy or action, one could postulate that some national law could interfere with ICANN's accountability or operation of policies. That would be true of any set of laws (even "international laws"). The converse would also be true (that some national law could protect ICANN's accountability or operation of policies). As such, it doesn't seem helpful (in my view) to operate at that level of abstraction.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Rather, I think it's more helpful to deal with concrete facts -- actual experiences and specific hypotheticals grounded in fact (specific laws, specific actions, etc.). We are making efforts in that direction. The review of ICANN's litigation is one such effort. This effort should give us useful data on the extent to which US law has been protective of, or interfered with, ICANN's accountability or operation of policies. Our questionnaire is another such effort.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Apologies for going on at length. I look forward to your thoughts.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></font></span><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:27 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a 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">
Dear Greg<br>
<br>
Thanks for your document with the hypothetical # 1 and its "Initial
strawman responses" which I understand are just to spur a
discussion.<br>
<br>
First of all I must mention that I consider this hypothetical
question as the most important one that we are faced with.<br>
<br>
Next, I will comment on the strawman responses, before I propose my
own response to the hypothetical.<br>
<br>
The strawman responses are premised on considerations that (1) ICANN
already works in manner that is observant of (the whole gamut of) US
law, (2) a rightful court judgement would simply further attune
ICANN to US law, including changing its practices and policies
accordingly in the future. <br>
<br>
These two considerations are taken in the "strawman responses" to be
good, positive things. Herein lies the crux of the jurisdiction
issue, and the nature of main difference between who support the
status quo and those who call for changes that ensures release of
ICANN from US jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
Those supporting status quo seem to see nothing wrong with ICANN
working and adjusting its policies to the full range of US law,
whether about foreign sanctions or anti trust or intellectual
property, or privacy, or health or other sectoral laws and
regulation (including legitimate orders of regulatory agencies like
FTC, FCC, FDA, and so on). But that is precisely the problem for the
rest of us. As I said a few times here, in democracy, there can be
"no legislation/ regulation without representation". That is the key
issue here. And this can only be resolved by either moving ICANN to
international law or at least get for it jurisdictional immunity
under US International Organisations Immunities Act . <br>
<br>
Now let me provide my response to the hypothetical # 1, which is <br>
<blockquote>In the following hypothetical, What are the influences
of ICANN’s
existing jurisdiction(s) relating to resolution of disputes (i.e.,
governing law and venue) on (1) the actual operation of ICANN’s
policies, (2) accountability mechanisms and (3) the resolution of
disputes?
<p>A plaintiff initiates litigation, challenging ICANN's actions
(or
inactions) involving actual operation of its policies – like
delegation of a gTLD, and/or acceptance of certain terms of
registry
operation, on the basis that plaintiff (or a class including
plaintiff) would be injured and that ICANN’s actions or
inactions
are in violation of law. The court finds that ICANN’s actions or
inaction violate the law and issues an order requiring ICANN to
change its actions.</p>
</blockquote>
My response<br>
<br>
Following such an adverse decision, ICANN will have no option other
than to change its policies and/ or operation of its policies as per
the court's directions. (This will also apply equally to a US
regulator's directions.) But such an act makes a mockery of ICANN's
status as global governance body (for key Internet resources)
becuase it will be forced to undertake its "global" governance role
as per the laws of one country. This should be unacceptable in the
21st century, from a global democratic standpoint. It is certainly
unacceptable to non US countries and citizens. Do remember that this
is a violation of the human right to equally and democratically
participate in any form of governance that one is subject to
(paraphrased reading of Article 21 of the UDHR and its elaboration
in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Such
changing of its policies and/or implementation of policies by ICANN
as applied to the whole world on the basis of the laws of one
country thus violates the human right to democratic governance. <br><span class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-m_1924783840843211006moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 28 January 2017 12:27 AM,
Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">At the last meeting of
the Jurisdiction Subgroup, we launched into discussion of the
first hypothetical proposed in Section C of the "Influence of
Jurisdiction" document. As a result of the discussion,
suggestions were made of ways to revise the hypothetical.
Those are currently marked in the Google doc.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Discussion and analysis
of the hypothetical was somewhat limited on the call, as many
participants did not feel ready to discuss the particular
hypothetical. As a result, it was decided to circulate this
hypothetical and future hypotheticals (or actual occurrences)
well in advance of the meetings. This allows time for
consideration, preparation, discussion on the list, etc.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The attached PowerPoint
contains Hypothetical #1 (revised as discussed). I've also
provided a format for our answers, along with some "strawman"
answers (most of which already appear in some form in the
Google doc). These strawman answers are intended to spur
discussion, and should not be taken as final answers; nor
should these answers serve to limit discussion.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I will put the text
into an MS Word doc and a Google Doc soon. Please begin (or
continue) your consideration of this hypothetical by replying
to this email. </div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you!</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-m_1924783840843211006mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-"><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-m_1924783840843211006moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-3255528579552370223gmail-m_1924783840843211006moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>