<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 10:52 PM,
Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E22580880@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Those interested in the scope of
jurisdictional immunity for IGOs should review the legal memo
from Prof. Edward Swaine contained in the initial report
available
at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en</a> >
<div>As you will see it varies by both jurisdiction and facts of
the specific case.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><font face="Verdana">Thanks to Phil for the original link and to
Pranesh for reminding us of it...</font></p>
I agree this is an important document. To me it proves what I have
been arguing all along; that it is possible to get (or seek)
immunity from US jurisdiction for ICANN under the relevant US Act
even while ensuring that ICANN's community accountability and other
internal governance mechanisms can continue to operate as at
present, even when they require the cover of certain US laws like
the California non profit law, plus perhaps some kinds of other
private laws. <br>
<br>
This is proven by two concepts discussed in the legal memo.<br>
<br>
(1) Functional immunity: When a designated international
organisation (here, ICANN) is given immunity to only cover its given
functions, and not generally for everything under the sun. <br>
<br>
(2) Waiver of immunity: Whereby the designated international
organisation (here, ICANN) can waive its immunity in certain
respects. So ICANN has to simply waive its immunity with respect to
the operation of the Californian non profit law which now has a
nexus with its new accountability mechanism, and is also otherwise
the law of its incorporation. (Even with general immunity, such a
waiver alone is enough for ICANN to preserve its current ways of
functioning, including the accountability mechanism). <br>
<br>
Accordingly, those who have been arguing that immunity for ICANN
cannot be sought because it will disable its community
accountability mechanism should in my view now withdraw that
argument. It should now be possible for them to agree to seeking
immunity for ICANN under the relevant US Act. <br>
<br>
As to those who actually think that application of full range of US
law to ICANN, in every area, whether related to health, or
communication, or security/ privacy, or intellectual property, or
anti trust, on excluding non-US citizens, basically everything, is
actually a good thing and should continue, I of course have no
answer. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E22580880@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Philip S. Corwin,
Founding Principal</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Virtualaw LLC</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">1155 F Street, NW</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Suite 1050</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Washington, DC 20004</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-559-8597/Direct</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-559-8750/Fax</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-255-6172/cell</font></strong></p>
<p><strong></strong> </p>
<p><em><strong><font color="#000080">"Luck is the residue
of design" -- Branch Rickey</font></strong></em></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF575578" style="direction: ltr;"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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
parminder [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burr, Becky; Paul Rosenzweig;
<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<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 14 February 2017
10:23 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
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
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext}
span.EmailStyle21
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
span.EmailStyle22
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style>
<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 type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:43
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burr, Becky <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz"
target="_blank">
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz></a>; Paul
Rosenzweig <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com></a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">
ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog
post on ICANN's jurisdiction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tuesday 14 February 2017 03:23
AM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
<br>
</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="
target="_blank">
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be-forgotten-googlecom</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </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>
</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>
</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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">
<parminder@itforchange.net></a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">
ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog
post on ICANN's jurisdiction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </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</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">Paul Rosenzweig</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"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</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="
target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></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="
target="_blank">
<span style="color:#0563C1">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </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"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog
post on ICANN's jurisdiction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 11 February 2017
10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:</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></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>
</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></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>
</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></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">Paul Rosenzweig</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" target="_blank"><span
style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</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="
target="_blank"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></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="
target="_blank">
<span style="color:#0563C1">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction]
Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Nigel,</span></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.</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.
</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.
</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.
</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?</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.</p>
<p>Which makes the entire exercise of our
questionnaire seeking whether it can so happen
rather needless. It of course can.
</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.
</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).</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) .
</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>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 11 February
2017 02:16 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
</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? </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"
target="_blank">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="
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="" color="#000000" align="left">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</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>