<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Farzaneh, thanks for your response. Pl see inline. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 20 February 2017 11:34 AM,
farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As mentioned in the email I sent just now, with reference to
information contained in a legal memo attached to an ICANN report,
immunity for ICANN can easily be had without affecting its
accountability and other internal governance mechanisms. I happy to
have further discussion, and inputs from others, on this point. I
have also repeatedly asked for legal opinion to be taken from a
"neutral authority" on this matter, but my demands have had no
response. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
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">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, international law is obviously not as expansive as national
laws, but that is the cost we must accept in going forward to be
governed globally, but democratically - in this case, for an global
as against nationally fragmented Internet. This said, there is
enough international law, and customary law application, for a
globally designated judicial body to be able to adjudicate matters
to satisfaction. This plus an active community mechanism should do
for a beginning. You asked in the last question if IRP is enough, we
can begin with it, but I prefer a more "general judicial" body that
a sectoral arbitration for many reasons that I would not go into
here (but of course the former is better in administration of
general law actorss all sectors and issues). It is possible to later
move towards such a global judicial oversight. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why not, if it within legal authority of a regulatory or executive
body.<a
href="https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/"> US
customs have forced</a> .com to seize domain names. Now if they
wanted to act against say .genericdrugs, with registry in India,
give me one reason US customs will treat ICANN differently than they
treat Verisign... They will simply force ICANN to remove
.genericdrugs as they have been forcing .com. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> They have to go
through court. But I might be wrong and a real life example
will be extremely helpful. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The above is a real example. As is disruption of Crimean domain
names
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2015-March/008611.html">http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2015-March/008611.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
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">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: <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
US state is constitutionally ordained to work to ensure US national
interest. Period. Other concerns are secondary. They may indulge in
international reasons, but that after US interest is taken care of.
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
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">"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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. Therefore ICANN should not be subject to <i>any </i>country's
jurisdiction, but be immunised and subject to international laws and
procedures alone.<br>
<br>
Best, parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA1H0zoLhf7O5COwXU-16EKgXTHsWwVwcJFkviud3abuA@mail.gmail.com"
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 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_-7501159281378228042moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>