<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 14 February 2017 10:23 PM,
Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E5F19D3186A53249905958C49B9AC3329F3EB6C0@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;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Again,
speaking only for myself, my question regarding scope was
about immunity, not jurisdiction. They are not the same.
The existence of privileges and immunities for international
organizations is not jurisdiction dependent – many
jurisdictions (including the US) offer such protections. My
point here was that the question of immunities was indeed
raised and rejected in WS1. ( In fact, this has come up
from time to time since Paul Twomey first brought up the
Fertilizer Institute example. My thoughts on this are
fairly well documented … ) <br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for your explanation, Becky.... But do not all the problems
that you list about enforcing new accountability mechanism apply as
much to change of jurisdiction as obtaining immunity under US
jurisdiction. In fact I understand getting immunity under the
relevant US Act as a diluter form of exit from US jurisdiction or
change in jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
Although I do not want to distract from the standalone point about
how so many people (whether or not you, becky) who force-postponed
the jurisdiction issue to work stream2 now argue that it should have
been dealt in works stream 1, if at all, let me also observe that:<br>
<br>
The fact is that it is possible to preserve the accountability
mechanism as a matter of private law, and with a choice of law/
venue for it being made as California law, even with obtaining
immunity under the cited US Act... We have given examples of other
US organisations -- like the fertilizer one you mention -- that
continue to be US non profits even as they have gained immunity
under this US Act. Why dont we first legally explore this option
rather than just rejecting it out of hand every time. Millions of
dollars have been spent on legal fees on the transition, why cant we
spend a little more money to explore this issue. I have asked for it
many times before on this list... parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E5F19D3186A53249905958C49B9AC3329F3EB6C0@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><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>
<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">
parminder [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burr, Becky <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz"><Becky.Burr@neustar.biz></a>;
Paul Rosenzweig
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com></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><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tuesday 14 February 2017 03:23 AM, Burr,
Becky wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_technology_2016_feb_11_google-2Dextend-2Dright-2Dto-2Dbe-2Dforgotten-2Dgooglecom&d=DwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=W-ZdUse-7oVFU2TsNxqVInu-QB6EqIRCQ7nK7TD8fFE&s=ASSQppCDbqp5eA6x-8N_LM9k2eJlnKyrAWW00mcIZ5o&e=">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be-forgotten-googlecom</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </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>Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 13, 2017 1:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'parminder' <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></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</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<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">
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</span><o:p></o:p></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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>