<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Seun,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">You say that a "Trump travel Ban . . . compared to</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">would have global effects on ICANN than the latter." </span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Can you clarify how a travel ban into the US from a list of countries would "have global effects on ICANN" and a travel ban into Turkey from a list of countries not have a similar type of effect? Is this just because more people will want to travel to ICANN's operations in the US than those in Turkey? Why is it a global effect on ICANN if it only concerns a small number of countries?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#500050"><span style="font-size:12.8px">[Please note that I personally do not support the travel ban, nor do I minimize the effects it has had and continues to have on citizens of those countries.]</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#500050"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#500050"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks!</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#500050"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#500050"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Greg</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#500050"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><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><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px">646-845-9428<br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@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="auto">Thanks Nigel, I am not asking about an overall immunity for ICANN but I am talking about specific scenario like the ones I have indicated. Maybe the right word isn't immunity.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cheers!<span class=""><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Sent from my LG G4<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos</div></span></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 14, 2017 11:45 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think you miss the point about immunity.<br>
<br>
It's means "ICANN can do what it likes and can't be sued".<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 14/02/17 09:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I am not a lawyer but it doesn't sound accurate to say that the effect<br>
of the country of (US) on ICANN is same with that of other<br>
countries (including the ones hosting her regional hubs) because that is<br>
what I think Paul may be implying here.<br>
<br>
As a simple example is a Trump travel Ban and the OFAC stuff compared to<br>
if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former<br>
would have global effects on ICANN than the latter. I for one would be<br>
glad if there can be immunity/exemption for ICANN(used in literary<br>
terms) in such scenarios<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
<br>
On Feb 13, 2017 7:59 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig"<br>
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Yes, I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact. Or<br>
put another way – it is wrong.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in France,<br>
ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy authorities might,<br>
for example, attempt to get ICANN to follow their right to be<br>
forgotten. They would fail, I think, but that proposition is no<br>
different in kind than the idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over<br>
ICANN which will not change one iota if ICANN changes its<br>
jurisdiction of incorporation. As I have said before, the only way<br>
in which place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your<br>
words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to<br>
corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g. the<br>
implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance – it would<br>
change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as others have also<br>
noted, the corporate law of California is vital to ICANN’s current<br>
structure.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
As for your question about my professional life it is amusing –<br>
because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in fact,<br>
given exactly that advice to German businesses with operations in<br>
the United States. I tell them that if they want to avoid American<br>
law (mostly law relating to cybersecurity) the only way to do so is<br>
to avoid having a business presence in the US. If they want to<br>
forgo the market completely they can do so to avoid American law.<br>
But otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same thing<br>
about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do this for a<br>
living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to paying clients.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
It is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are making<br>
assertions that have no actual basis in any law that I know of.<br>
Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not make them so____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Paul____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig____<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a> <<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*parminder [mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM<br>
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>>;<br>
<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.org</a>><br>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:____<br>
<br>
As we have repeatedly noted, the exact same thing is true of<br>
ICANN’s being subject to the laws of India, France and any other<br>
place it does business. ____<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this<br>
is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of<br>
incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a<br>
completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it<br>
may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition?<br>
<br>
Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business<br>
incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that<br>
the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the<br>
real life implications of such application -- is more or less the<br>
same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where<br>
it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and<br>
unambiguous response to this. Thanks.<br>
<br>
If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone<br>
knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can<br>
go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let<br>
the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use<br>
wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic<br>
universally known legal and political facts.<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in<br>
mind of Amartya Sen.____<br>
<br>
<br>
A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and<br>
self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic<br>
American"...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig____<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
*From:*<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>>] *On Behalf Of<br>
*parminder<br>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:46 AM<br>
*To:* <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.org</a>><br>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's<br>
jurisdiction____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
Nigel,____<br>
<br>
Thanks for your views. One gets faced by two kinds of arguments<br>
in favour of keeping the jurisdictional status quo -- which are<br>
mutually exclusive.____<br>
<br>
(1) ICANN is somehow not subject to the whole range of US law<br>
and executive powers, as any other US organisations is - or at<br>
least it is somehow felt that US law and executive power will<br>
never apply itself over ICANN functioning. ____<br>
<br>
(2) As you argue, ICANN is indeed subject to all US laws and<br>
powers, which might indeed be applied over it as necessary, but<br>
this is a good and a desirable thing. ____<br>
<br>
As we have no move forward at all, we must do it in stages and<br>
remove some arguments off the table which we can mutually agree<br>
to be untenable. So can we now agree that the view (1) above is<br>
simply untrue and naively held by those who forward it. ____<br>
<br>
We can now move to (2). First of all, this means that indeed US<br>
law and executive can impinge upon ICANN's policy implementation<br>
whenever it feels it valid to do so in pursuance of legitimate<br>
US public interest. Meaning, If ICANN makes a policy and does<br>
its implementation which is not in-accordance with US law or<br>
legitimate US executive will, they can "interfere" can cause<br>
those actions to be rolled back on the pain of state's coercive<br>
action. This can be for instance regarding how and what<br>
medicines and health related activities are considered ok by the<br>
concerned US regulator. (Similar examples can be thought of in<br>
practically every sector). Are you with me till here, because I<br>
think I am only making logical deduction over what you seem to<br>
agree with?____<br>
<br>
If so, this indeed establishes as a fact that US jurisdiction<br>
can, as required, impinge upon (which seen from another vantage<br>
is same as, interfere with) ICANN policies and policy<br>
implementation.____<br>
<br>
Which makes the entire exercise of our questionnaire seeking<br>
whether it can so happen rather needless. It of course can. ____<br>
<br>
Lets then not argue or fight over that terrain, where we have<br>
this agreement, about how law and executive power operates vis a<br>
vis organisations subject to their jurisdiction. ____<br>
<br>
That brings us to another terrain - that, as you argue, and<br>
others have here, that it is right, appropriate and needed that<br>
US law and legitimate executive power impinges upon ICANN<br>
functioning as and when required, becuase it is important to<br>
subject everything to the rule of law (and in your and many<br>
other people's views, ICANN can practically ONLY be subject to<br>
rule of US's law).____<br>
<br>
I am happy to discuss this part as long as we do not keep<br>
drifting back to the earlier one whereby there really seems to<br>
be an agreement among most of us that US law and legitimate<br>
executive power can indeed impinge upon or "interfere with"<br>
ICANN's policy or policy implementation work (even if many<br>
consider such interference as being good for ICANN and public<br>
interest) . ____<br>
> of the country of (US) on ICANN is same with that of other<br>
countries (including the ones hosting her regional hubs) because that is<br>
what I think Paul may be implying here.<br>
<br>
As a simple example is a Trump travel Ban and the OFAC stuff compared to<br>
if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former<br>
would have global effects on ICANN than the latter. I for one would be<br>
glad if there can be immunity/exemption for ICANN(used in literary<br>
terms) in such scenarios<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
<br>
On Feb 13, 2017 7:59 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig"<br>
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Yes, I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact. Or<br>
put another way – it is wrong.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in France,<br>
ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy authorities might,<br>
for example, attempt to get ICANN to follow their right to be<br>
forgotten. They would fail, I think, but that proposition is no<br>
different in kind than the idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over<br>
ICANN which will not change one iota if ICANN changes its<br>
jurisdiction of incorporation. As I have said before, the only way<br>
in which place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your<br>
words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to<br>
corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g. the<br>
implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance – it would<br>
change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as others have also<br>
noted, the corporate law of California is vital to ICANN’s current<br>
structure.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
As for your question about my professional life it is amusing –<br>
because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in fact,<br>
given exactly that advice to German businesses with operations in<br>
the United States. I tell them that if they want to avoid American<br>
law (mostly law relating to cybersecurity) the only way to do so is<br>
to avoid having a business presence in the US. If they want to<br>
forgo the market completely they can do so to avoid American law.<br>
But otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same thing<br>
about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do this for a<br>
living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to paying clients.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
It is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are making<br>
assertions that have no actual basis in any law that I know of.<br>
Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not make them so____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Paul____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig____<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a> <<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*parminder [mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM<br>
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>>;<br>
<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.org</a>><br>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:____<br>
<br>
As we have repeatedly noted, the exact same thing is true of<br>
ICANN’s being subject to the laws of India, France and any other<br>
place it does business. ____<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this<br>
is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of<br>
incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a<br>
completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it<br>
may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition?<br>
<br>
Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business<br>
incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that<br>
the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the<br>
real life implications of such application -- is more or less the<br>
same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where<br>
it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and<br>
unambiguous response to this. Thanks.<br>
<br>
If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone<br>
knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can<br>
go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let<br>
the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use<br>
wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic<br>
universally known legal and political facts.<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in<br>
mind of Amartya Sen.____<br>
<br>
<br>
A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and<br>
self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic<br>
American"...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig____<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <tel:+1%20202-738-1739>____<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
*From:*<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>>] *On Behalf Of<br>
*parminder<br>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:46 AM<br>
*To:* <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.org</a>><br>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's<br>
jurisdiction____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
Nigel,____<br>
<br>
Thanks for your views. One gets faced by two kinds of arguments<br>
in favour of keeping the jurisdictional status quo -- which are<br>
mutually exclusive.____<br>
<br>
(1) ICANN is somehow not subject to the whole range of US law<br>
and executive powers, as any other US organisations is - or at<br>
least it is somehow felt that US law and executive power will<br>
never apply itself over ICANN functioning. ____<br>
<br>
(2) As you argue, ICANN is indeed subject to all US laws and<br>
powers, which might indeed be applied over it as necessary, but<br>
this is a good and a desirable thing. ____<br>
<br>
As we have no move forward at all, we must do it in stages and<br>
remove some arguments off the table which we can mutually agree<br>
to be untenable. So can we now agree that the view (1) above is<br>
simply untrue and naively held by those who forward it. ____<br>
<br>
We can now move to (2). First of all, this means that indeed US<br>
law and executive can impinge upon ICANN's policy implementation<br>
whenever it feels it valid to do so in pursuance of legitimate<br>
US public interest. Meaning, If ICANN makes a policy and does<br>
its implementation which is not in-accordance with US law or<br>
legitimate US executive will, they can "interfere" can cause<br>
those actions to be rolled back on the pain of state's coercive<br>
action. This can be for instance regarding how and what<br>
medicines and health related activities are considered ok by the<br>
concerned US regulator. (Similar examples can be thought of in<br>
practically every sector). Are you with me till here, because I<br>
think I am only making logical deduction over what you seem to<br>
agree with?____<br>
<br>
If so, this indeed establishes as a fact that US jurisdiction<br>
can, as required, impinge upon (which seen from another vantage<br>
is same as, interfere with) ICANN policies and policy<br>
implementation.____<br>
<br>
Which makes the entire exercise of our questionnaire seeking<br>
whether it can so happen rather needless. It of course can. ____<br>
<br>
Lets then not argue or fight over that terrain, where we have<br>
this agreement, about how law and executive power operates vis a<br>
vis organisations subject to their jurisdiction. ____<br>
<br>
That brings us to another terrain - that, as you argue, and<br>
others have here, that it is right, appropriate and needed that<br>
US law and legitimate executive power impinges upon ICANN<br>
functioning as and when required, becuase it is important to<br>
subject everything to the rule of law (and in your and many<br>
other people's views, ICANN can practically ONLY be subject to<br>
rule of US's law).____<br>
<br>
I am happy to discuss this part as long as we do not keep<br>
drifting back to the earlier one whereby there really seems to<br>
be an agreement among most of us that US law and legitimate<br>
executive power can indeed impinge upon or "interfere with"<br>
ICANN's policy or policy implementation work (even if many<br>
consider such interference as being good for ICANN and public<br>
interest) . ____<br>
<br>
Your only problem with immunity seem to come up with regard to<br>
criminally fraudulent activities. You give the examples of IOC<br>
and FIFA but I have not found they having any special criminal<br>
immunities. I may not have looked up well, but did they? Were<br>
they not finally raided by both Swiss and US authorities. On the<br>
other hand there are many international organisations with legal<br>
immunities that have been gooing great global public interest<br>
work without corruption. Interpol hasnt started to take money to<br>
make international warrants disappear, not, more humbly, the<br>
International Fertilizers Development Centre, immunised under<br>
the relevant US Act, and which enters into contracts worth<br>
millions every years for globally distributed projects, has been<br>
known to do so....<br>
<br>
(FIFA and IOC become corrupt because of commercial thinking<br>
completely overpowering public service ethics -- and if ICANN<br>
becomes so it will also be ore likely becuase of this reason.<br>
But et us not get distracted. )<br>
<br>
And if indeed we are so concerned about ICANN's abuse of power<br>
and possible frauds and corruption, we should have let a<br>
stronger and more agile community accountability mechanism get<br>
established, like the membership based one, and with lower<br>
thresholds of triggering community action... That is where the<br>
mistake was made, and can still be corrected down the line. Do<br>
not throw the world at the mercy of US law and executive action<br>
for this purpose, especially when it related to to an<br>
infrastructure which today underpins almost every social system.<br>
This is not just some sports. (No hurt intended to sports fans,<br>
I being one.)<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
On Saturday 11 February 2017 02:16 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:____<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
and innumerable others. In the circumstances, the real<br>
waiver across all<br>
sectors and laws would be seek immunity under the US<br>
International<br>
Organisations Immunity Act. Would you not prefer this<br>
route? If not, why<br>
so? ____<br>
<br>
<br>
Because I do not want ICANN to have immunity.<br>
<br>
I have been involved in this community since before it was<br>
called 'ICANN', including the gTLD-MoU and the IFWP.<br>
<br>
I have seen ICANN behave as an autocrat robber baron and<br>
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<br>
to last years' transition, as well as the fact that, both<br>
staff and Board now have personal trust, that was totally<br>
absent 15 years ago.<br>
<br>
But both organisations and personnnel can change.<br>
<br>
Institutional immunity leads to corruption. I do not want<br>
ICANN to become a FIFA, or IOC.<br>
<br>
And the recent .AFRICA case shows, the checks and balances<br>
of the US judicial system appear to work reasonably well (I<br>
personally remain uneasy about the covenant of immunity but<br>
I expect you have no problem with that).<br>
<br>
I trust this explains why some people - and I am one - may<br>
have a diametrically opposed view to yours when it comes to<br>
ICANN immunity.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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>
<<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>> ____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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>
<<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Your only problem with immunity seem to come up with regard to<br>
criminally fraudulent activities. You give the examples of IOC<br>
and FIFA but I have not found they having any special criminal<br>
immunities. I may not have looked up well, but did they? Were<br>
they not finally raided by both Swiss and US authorities. On the<br>
other hand there are many international organisations with legal<br>
immunities that have been gooing great global public interest<br>
work without corruption. Interpol hasnt started to take money to<br>
make international warrants disappear, not, more humbly, the<br>
International Fertilizers Development Centre, immunised under<br>
the relevant US Act, and which enters into contracts worth<br>
millions every years for globally distributed projects, has been<br>
known to do so....<br>
<br>
(FIFA and IOC become corrupt because of commercial thinking<br>
completely overpowering public service ethics -- and if ICANN<br>
becomes so it will also be ore likely becuase of this reason.<br>
But et us not get distracted. )<br>
<br>
And if indeed we are so concerned about ICANN's abuse of power<br>
and possible frauds and corruption, we should have let a<br>
stronger and more agile community accountability mechanism get<br>
established, like the membership based one, and with lower<br>
thresholds of triggering community action... That is where the<br>
mistake was made, and can still be corrected down the line. Do<br>
not throw the world at the mercy of US law and executive action<br>
for this purpose, especially when it related to to an<br>
infrastructure which today underpins almost every social system.<br>
This is not just some sports. (No hurt intended to sports fans,<br>
I being one.)<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
On Saturday 11 February 2017 02:16 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:____<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
and innumerable others. In the circumstances, the real<br>
waiver across all<br>
sectors and laws would be seek immunity under the US<br>
International<br>
Organisations Immunity Act. Would you not prefer this<br>
route? If not, why<br>
so? ____<br>
<br>
<br>
Because I do not want ICANN to have immunity.<br>
<br>
I have been involved in this community since before it was<br>
called 'ICANN', including the gTLD-MoU and the IFWP.<br>
<br>
I have seen ICANN behave as an autocrat robber baron and<br>
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<br>
to last years' transition, as well as the fact that, both<br>
staff and Board now have personal trust, that was totally<br>
absent 15 years ago.<br>
<br>
But both organisations and personnnel can change.<br>
<br>
Institutional immunity leads to corruption. I do not want<br>
ICANN to become a FIFA, or IOC.<br>
<br>
And the recent .AFRICA case shows, the checks and balances<br>
of the US judicial system appear to work reasonably well (I<br>
personally remain uneasy about the covenant of immunity but<br>
I expect you have no problem with that).<br>
<br>
I trust this explains why some people - and I am one - may<br>
have a diametrically opposed view to yours when it comes to<br>
ICANN immunity.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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>
<<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>> ____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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>
<<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
______________________________<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>
</blockquote></div></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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>