<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Thank you Parminder. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have several comments/points/questions with regards to granting ICANN immunity from the US laws altogether. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">First: Can ICANN be held accountable if it is immune in the US? If it can, how so? ( I know you have explained this before but can you specifically point to a source, an applicable law? ) United Nations and its agencies act autonomously, they have been granted immunity and sometimes they don't act responsibly and it is not clear how we can hold them accountable. Same thing should not happen to ICANN. which court can ICANN be taken to? You think IRP is enough? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Second: As to the laws, we don't have a developed set of international laws that can address all ICANN issues, do we? For example, sometimes in some disputes the question is whether domain names or ccTLDs are property or service. We don't have a solid body of international laws that can ascertain such issues. So I am not sure what will happen if there is a blanket immunity over US laws. ( I think we have discussed these before, sorry for bringing them up again but it's not bad to be reminded)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Also, I was wondering if you could be more issue specific on domain name issues, maybe with real examples. I understand your hypothetical example but there can be so many ifs and buts that I prefer to get a clear example of something has already happened. I don't think any governmental executive agency can just ask ICANN to disable a generic name. They have to go through court. But I might be wrong and a real life example will be extremely helpful. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">You are right that OFAC licenses can be revoked, and certainly we need to discuss this further as to what happens if a license is revoked and based on what reasons it can be revoked. But consider that sometimes the US does not revoke a license for a national reason, it does it because of an international reason! There is an interesting revocation case which US cites the reason as: </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">"As a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the United States today fulfilled its obligation<i> [revoking Iran's license]</i> to strengthen measures to protect the financial sector from the risks posed to the international financial system by Iran. In October 2008, FATF issued its fourth statement declaring that Iran continues to "pose a serious threat to the integrity of the international financial system" and called for countries worldwide to strengthen measures to protect their financial sectors from this threat." Found at <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1257.aspx">https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1257.aspx</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">addition in italics added by me. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">So I guess this revocation could happen in any other country. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Farzaneh</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:50 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<br>
<div class="m_-7501159281378228042moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 21 January 2017 02:58 AM,
farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Here is a blog post on
ICANN's jurisdiction and sanctions. <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/13/icanns-jurisdiction-sanctions-and-domain-names/" target="_blank">http://www.<wbr>internetgovernance.org/2017/<wbr>01/13/icanns-jurisdiction-<wbr>sanctions-and-domain-names/</a></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have raised some of
the issues before but the blog post is more consolidated. Hope
it is useful for the work of this group.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Dear Farzaneh,<br>
<br>
Thanks for this meticulous and useful work. <br>
<br>
I have two comments to offer. Firstly, OFAC are just one kinds of
sanctions that outside entities may be faced with. There could be
other kinds related to commercial issues, like intellectual
property, that businesses of other countries can face in the US,
whether arising from a court order or that of an executive/
regulatory agency. <br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dutch-customs-seize-indian-drugs-in-transit-industry-frets-112012300081_1.html" target="_blank">Here
is an example</a> of an EU government seizing, on US request,
generic drugs being exported from India to Brazil. While this
dispute is at the WTO, there is no question that if a US
organisation (including non profit) were in any way helping or
facilitating such a trade between India and US it will be forced to
withdraw help/ facilitation by a US court or executive agency. Lets
now assume that the hypothetical Indian exporter had a gTLD
.genericdrugs which domain space was employed inter alia to
facilitate its global business. The US law, through courts or
executive agencies, would easily come in to disable it if it can -
and it indeed can through its jurisdictional oversight over ICANN. <br>
<br>
Now we come to the crucial part of what are the solutions that we
may have. <br>
<br>
You suggest that ICANN gets some kind of a general OFAC waiver.
Firstly, as described above there are many other ways and basis for
interference by the US government with the DNS beyond OFAC .
Therefore we will need to get intellectual property violation
waiver, lottery activity waiver, and innumerable others. In the
circumstances, the real waiver across all sectors and laws would be
seek immunity under the US International Organisations Immunity Act.
Would you not prefer this route? If not, why so? <br>
<br>
Secondly, no waiver is permanent, as we can very well judge from the
Trump's administration's various activities. US is a democracy, and
people have a right to change their governments, and the government
have the right to change policies and laws. That would happen all
the time. And we must act as if changes will happen rather than that
they wont. Yes, even immunity under the mentioned US Act can be
rolled back, and therefore international law and incorporation is
the only real solution. However, to withdraw statutory immunity is
so much more difficult. Plus there would be time, if this is
attempted, for ICANN to even seek to make "alternative arrangements"
outside the US.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_-7501159281378228042gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-7501159281378228042mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="m_-7501159281378228042moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-7501159281378228042moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>