<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>+ 1</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/02/2017 14:39, Paul Rosenzweig
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00ca01d286d0$15a218f0$40e64ad0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<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:Tahoma;
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;}
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;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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">+1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Paul
Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><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">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">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">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"><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">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"><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">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<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>Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Seun Ojedeji <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com"><seun.ojedeji@gmail.com></a>;
Nigel Roberts <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"><nigel@channelisles.net></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">In
regard to President Trump's proposed temporary travel
restrictions, the fact that they have been enjoined by US
Courts illustrates that ICANN is well placed in a nation
subject to rule of law and separation of powers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">So
far as OFAC restrictions aimed at preventing business
transactions with criminal and terrorist organizations,
ICANN has indicated that it can request exemptions and
that when it has done so they have been granted (at
least that is my recollection). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Finally,
and once again, arguments that ICANN should be immune
not just from US jurisdiction but from the laws of any
nation state are in effect positing that ICANN should be
an IGO with broad quasi-sovereign immunity. That would
be both contrary to the aim of the transition as well as
contrary to effective accountability, which can only
occur when Bylaws transgressions can be adjudicated in
court if internal mechanisms fail. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Philip
S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Virtualaw
LLC</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">1155
F Street, NW</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Suite
1050</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Washington,
DC 20004</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">202-255-6172/cell</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><i><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="color:black">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%"></span></div>
<div id="divRpF167418">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] on behalf of
Seun Ojedeji [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nigel Roberts<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on
ICANN's jurisdiction</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Cheers!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Sent
from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On
Feb 14, 2017 11:45 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"
target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="color:black">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*parminder [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54
AM<br>
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>>;<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
*From:*<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>>]
*On Behalf Of<br>
*parminder<br>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017
8:46 AM<br>
*To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*parminder [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54
AM<br>
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>>;<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
*From:*<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>>]
*On Behalf Of<br>
*parminder<br>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017
8:46 AM<br>
*To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.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>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>>
____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="color:black"> 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>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>>
____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="color:black">
<hr style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:black">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature"
target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13918 -
Release Date: 02/09/17<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987</pre>
</body>
</html>