<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM,
Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:002501d2848b$b107e190$1317a4b0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">As
we have repeatedly noted, the exact same thing is true of
ICANN’s being subject to the laws of India, France and any
other place it does business. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this
is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of
incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a
completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it
may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition? <br>
<br>
Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business
incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that
the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the
real life implications of such application -- is more or less the
same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where
it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and
unambiguous response to this. Thanks.<br>
<br>
If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone
knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can
go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let
the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use
wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic
universally known legal and political facts. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:002501d2848b$b107e190$1317a4b0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Your
persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in mind
of Amartya Sen.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and
self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic
American"...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:002501d2848b$b107e190$1317a4b0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul
Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span
style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">My
PGP Key: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"><span
style="color:#0563C1">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on
ICANN's jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Nigel,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Thanks
for your views. One gets faced by two kinds of arguments in
favour of keeping the jurisdictional status quo</span> --
which are mutually exclusive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>(1) ICANN is somehow not subject to the whole range of US law
and executive powers, as any other US organisations is - or at
least it is somehow felt that US law and executive power will
never apply itself over ICANN functioning. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>(2) As you argue, ICANN is indeed subject to all US laws and
powers, which might indeed be applied over it as necessary,
but this is a good and a desirable thing. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>As we have no move forward at all, we must do it in stages
and remove some arguments off the table which we can mutually
agree to be untenable. So can we now agree that the view (1)
above is simply untrue and naively held by those who forward
it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>We can now move to (2). First of all, this means that indeed
US law and executive can impinge upon ICANN's policy
implementation whenever it feels it valid to do so in
pursuance of legitimate US public interest. Meaning, If ICANN
makes a policy and does its implementation which is not
in-accordance with US law or legitimate US executive will,
they can "interfere" can cause those actions to be rolled back
on the pain of state's coercive action. This can be for
instance regarding how and what medicines and health related
activities are considered ok by the concerned US regulator.
(Similar examples can be thought of in practically every
sector). Are you with me till here, because I think I am only
making logical deduction over what you seem to agree with?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>If so, this indeed establishes as a fact that US jurisdiction
can, as required, impinge upon (which seen from another
vantage is same as, interfere with) ICANN policies and policy
implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Which makes the entire exercise of our questionnaire seeking
whether it can so happen rather needless. It of course can. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Lets then not argue or fight over that terrain, where we have
this agreement, about how law and executive power operates vis
a vis organisations subject to their jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>That brings us to another terrain - that, as you argue, and
others have here, that it is right, appropriate and needed
that US law and legitimate executive power impinges upon ICANN
functioning as and when required, becuase it is important to
subject everything to the rule of law (and in your and many
other people's views, ICANN can practically ONLY be subject to
rule of US's law).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I am happy to discuss this part as long as we do not keep
drifting back to the earlier one whereby there really seems to
be an agreement among most of us that US law and legitimate
executive power can indeed impinge upon or "interfere with"
ICANN's policy or policy implementation work (even if many
consider such interference as being good for ICANN and public
interest) . <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Your only
problem with immunity seem to come up with regard to
criminally fraudulent activities. You give the examples of IOC
and FIFA but I have not found they having any special criminal
immunities. I may not have looked up well, but did they? Were
they not finally raided by both Swiss and US authorities. On
the other hand there are many international organisations with
legal immunities that have been gooing great global public
interest work without corruption. Interpol hasnt started to
take money to make international warrants disappear, not, more
humbly, the International Fertilizers Development Centre,
immunised under the relevant US Act, and which enters into
contracts worth millions every years for globally distributed
projects, has been known to do so....<br>
<br>
(FIFA and IOC become corrupt because of commercial thinking
completely overpowering public service ethics -- and if ICANN
becomes so it will also be ore likely becuase of this reason.
But et us not get distracted. )<br>
<br>
And if indeed we are so concerned about ICANN's abuse of power
and possible frauds and corruption, we should have let a
stronger and more agile community accountability mechanism get
established, like the membership based one, and with lower
thresholds of triggering community action... That is where the
mistake was made, and can still be corrected down the line. Do
not throw the world at the mercy of US law and executive
action for this purpose, especially when it related to to an
infrastructure which today underpins almost every social
system. This is not just some sports. (No hurt intended to
sports fans, I being one.)<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 11 February 2017 02:16 PM,
Nigel Roberts wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">and innumerable others. In the
circumstances, the real waiver across all <br>
sectors and laws would be seek immunity under the US
International <br>
Organisations Immunity Act. Would you not prefer this
route? If not, why <br>
so? <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Because I do not want ICANN to have immunity. <br>
<br>
I have been involved in this community since before it was
called 'ICANN', including the gTLD-MoU and the IFWP. <br>
<br>
I have seen ICANN behave as an autocrat robber baron and
deprive people of their property. <br>
<br>
Fortunately, we have made great strides since then. <br>
<br>
Accountability work, between 2003 (in the case of ccTLDs) up
to last years' transition, as well as the fact that, both
staff and Board now have personal trust, that was totally
absent 15 years ago. <br>
<br>
But both organisations and personnnel can change. <br>
<br>
Institutional immunity leads to corruption. I do not want
ICANN to become a FIFA, or IOC. <br>
<br>
And the recent .AFRICA case shows, the checks and balances
of the US judicial system appear to work reasonably well (I
personally remain uneasy about the covenant of immunity but
I expect you have no problem with that). <br>
<br>
I trust this explains why some people - and I am one - may
have a diametrically opposed view to yours when it comes to
ICANN immunity. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>