<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
On Tuesday 14 February 2017 03:23 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E5F19D3186A53249905958C49B9AC3329F3E84FB@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.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
{mso-style-priority:99;
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;}
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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">On
the Right to be Forgotten issue, this may be of interest:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be-forgotten-googlecom">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be-forgotten-googlecom</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Asking
only for information, and not reflecting any views of the
Board – but is the question of immunity within scope? We
just spent several years and many millions of dollars
agreeing on an accountability mechanism that ultimately
relies on the authority of a court to enforce the results of
an IRP or the exercise of a community power.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Becky, <br>
<br>
There are other responses to be given to a few issues and postings
but this is confined to a very narrow and clear point: were you and
others not around when, at the start of the transition process many
asked for the jurisdiction to be taken up first, front and centre
but it was argued by many and "decided" that work stream 1 will only
take up issues that must be decided before and for the IANA
transition to take place, and that other issues can be dealt by work
stream 2, and, further, that the jurisdiction issue fits the
description of issues for the work-stream 2, it being not essential
to IANA transition and setting up new IANA and community
accountability arrangements. With this precise argument, the
jurisdiction issue was force-postponed to works stream 2 over the
protests of those who wanted to sort it our first. What does one now
make of the same people saying that jurisdiction issue should in
fact have been sorted out before the new IANA and community
accountability mechanisms were decided, and now it is too late to do
so? Please clarify. Thanks.<br>
Best regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E5F19D3186A53249905958C49B9AC3329F3E84FB@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><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>Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 13, 2017 1:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'parminder'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>;
<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 class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Yes,
I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact.
Or put another way – it is wrong.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in
France, ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy
authorities might, for example, attempt to get ICANN to
follow their right to be forgotten. They would fail, I
think, but that proposition is no different in kind than the
idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over ICANN which will not
change one iota if ICANN changes its jurisdiction of
incorporation. As I have said before, the only way in which
place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your
words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to
corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g.
the implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance –
it would change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as
others have also noted, the corporate law of California is
vital to ICANN’s current structure.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">As
for your question about my professional life it is amusing –
because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in
fact, given exactly that advice to German businesses with
operations in the United States. I tell them that if they
want to avoid American law (mostly law relating to
cybersecurity) the only way to do so is to avoid having a
business presence in the US. If they want to forgo the
market completely they can do so to avoid American law. But
otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same
thing about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do
this for a living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to
paying clients.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">It
is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are
making assertions that have no actual basis in any law that
I know of. Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not
make them so<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul<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="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=jVbio65R2RgPLnm2aEg_6Nf9rv5aZjPbmiIko1e7Zr4&s=si2IWrO2xlIGSJ4cnQBWEEF7MH881gn6WINuvb29W38&e="><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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=jVbio65R2RgPLnm2aEg_6Nf9rv5aZjPbmiIko1e7Zr4&s=o-4zgaXZNOFUO08Jqh52pS-lmobR0A-B4lhaTpLrVZk&e="><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">
parminder [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM,
Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul
Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=jVbio65R2RgPLnm2aEg_6Nf9rv5aZjPbmiIko1e7Zr4&s=si2IWrO2xlIGSJ4cnQBWEEF7MH881gn6WINuvb29W38&e="><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=jVbio65R2RgPLnm2aEg_6Nf9rv5aZjPbmiIko1e7Zr4&s=o-4zgaXZNOFUO08Jqh52pS-lmobR0A-B4lhaTpLrVZk&e="><span
style="color:#0563C1">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on
ICANN's jurisdiction</span><o:p></o:p></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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=jVbio65R2RgPLnm2aEg_6Nf9rv5aZjPbmiIko1e7Zr4&s=Y9z4KT24YTOhb3hxaFgBh60uhNl2BPZN22qWcJ-86es&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>