<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Grec</div><div>I fully agree with Seun.</div><div>We must raise this question legally and ask for a NEUTRAL LEGAL VIEW</div><div>There is désagrément on the matter.</div><div>Several person said, there is no possibility to Immune ICANN from US LAW </div><div>Others said .it has had a precedence.</div><div>This exchange of correspondence is totally counter productive and must be resolved properly.</div><div>I terrefort request Greg, to formulate the question/ view on the matter and after consultation with Co-Chair ask for an international Neutral </div><div>Legal View .</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-02-25 10:43 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Feb 25, 2017 5:21 AM, "parminder" <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></span><blockquote class="m_-7570188045887343928quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span>
<p><font face="Verdana">Becky, thanks for your response and please
see inline. </font><br>
</p><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<br>
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410moz-cite-prefix"><br></div></div></span><span><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
Absent the statutory grant of authority found in California
law (and the laws of other jurisdictions no doubt), the
community powers are likely not enforceable.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
As argued in my previous email, based on an legal memo attached to
an ICANN report, it is evident that ICANN can waive immunity with
regard to operation of relevant California non profit law required
for its accountability mechanism. I am happy to seek legal advice on
this point. But from what looks apparent now, your above statement
may not hold true.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">SO: FWIW, Can we then derive a question from this for the legal to answer? I think it may be better we have something officially/formerly documented with regards to this, otherwise we will just keep coming back to it everytime. It will be good to be able to provide documentation is future to show that it's a matter that has been discussed and brought to a "consensus based" conclusion.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-7570188045887343928quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I
am also confused about how one would reconcile the
privileges and immunity approach with deliberately chosen
language in the Bylaws. Under the US International
Organizations Immunities Act, ICANN would first have to be
an “international organization” as defined in the Act thus:
</span><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">For
the purposes of this subchapter, the term “international
organization” means a public international organization in
which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty
or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing
such participation or making an appropriation for such
participation, and which shall have been designated by the
President through appropriate Executive order as being
entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities
provided in this subchapter.” 22 U.S. Code 228. The Swiss
Host State Act, 2007, has similar requirements. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Yes, it needs action by both the Congress and the President of the
US. The former will need to just amend some existing laws related to
some international orgs and add ICANN somewhere in it. Simple work.
And the President has to issue a decree under the Immunities Act. <br><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">ICANN
is not a treaty-based organization, </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
This is not required. <br><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">nor
is it conducting work normally carried out by an
intergovernmental organization.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
As shown by Jorge, this is not true.<div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
Turning it into a treaty-based organization </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
No need to turn it into treaty based org to get US immunity. <br><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">would
seem to me to violate the Bylaws-mandated Core Value that
requires ICANN to
<b><i>remain rooted in the private sector</i></b>. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
There is a linguistic problem here. Private sector is understood
differently in the US than almost everywhere else. In the US, it is
just to be outside government, which ICANN is. Outside the US, it
mostly mean for profit sector. ICANN is indeed outside
government(s), and there is no proposal to change that. But it is
also equally a non profit . That also I hope is not intended to be
changed. <br>
<br>
In any case, whether non profit or for profit, everything is always
subject to some kind of governmental jurisdiction. Being so subject
does not change its non profit or even for profit nature. So the
point is really moot. <br><div class="m_-7570188045887343928quoted-text">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">This
language was contested on numerous occasions by members of
the GAC, and the community repeatedly insisted on retaining
this orientation. I think that there can be little argument
that the community affirmatively committed to maintaining
this status through the Accountability work. <br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The community asked this group to consider the issue of US
jurisdiction over ICANN. And a question can only be considered if it
is open - -unless, sorry to use that word, we are all mutually and
together fooling ourselves, and doing discussions that really have
no meaning or purpose. I really hope this is not the case -
-although, I must admit, despair often does arises that it may
actually may be the case.<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br></font><div class="m_-7570188045887343928elided-text">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(0,112,192);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410apple-converted-space"><span style="background:white;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
<a class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a>
[<a class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 14, 2017 1:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan <a class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction
<a class="m_-7570188045887343928m_218229017637347410moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 14, 2017 12:29 PM, "Greg
Shatan" <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Seun,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt">You
say that a "Trump travel Ban . . . compared to</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt"><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." </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt">Can
you clarify how a travel ban into the US from
a list of countries would "have global effects
on ICANN" and a travel ban into Turkey from a
list of countries not have a similar type of
effect? Is this just because more people will
want to travel to ICANN's operations in the US
than those in Turkey?
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">SO: It's not really because more people
"want" to, it's because for ICANN it may be prudent at
times to have the meeting in the US. When I say meeting, I
am not just referring to the 3 global meetings alone.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt">Why
is it a global effect on ICANN if it only
concerns a small number of countries?</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">SO: Sometime ago I was reading an
article mentioning whether I* organisations should cancel
subsequent meetings in the US (even though I personally do
not think it's worth it to cancel already planned Puerto
Rico meeting) but imagine the global effects if such
happen. Beyond that such action by US govt also cause
unintended(or perhaps unnecessary) consequences/reactions.
Like it won't be out of scope for an African govt who is
already pissed off with .Africa[1] and second level 2
character to also indicate the ban as an exhibit to drive
a point. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just checkout how many ICANN related
articles that connects to the ban has been published
lately so you think similar level of response would have
happened globally if the travel ban happened in Turkey? I
doubt. So it's not always about the few ban countries,
it's about the global reaction.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For clarity if ICANN were incorporated
in Turkey and same banned happen, the global effect would
have still be similar to that of the US at present. So the
point is not that it may not have happened if ICANN was
incorporated in Turkey (or Switzerland as Paul puts it)
but the point is that it is unfair to say the effects to
ICANN ORG/community in both scenarios is the same<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Ofcourse I recognise there is not
light at the end of the tunnel.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:9.5pt">[Please
note that I personally do not support the
travel ban, nor do I minimize the effects it
has had and continues to have on citizens of
those countries.]</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:9.5pt">Thanks!</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:9.5pt">Greg</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><a name="m_-7570188045887343928_m_218229017637347410_m_-5425054752436950804_m_220202634039829"></a><b><span style="color:rgb(0,46,98);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">C:
<a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" target="_blank" value="+19178166428">917-816-6428</a><br>
S: gsshatan<br>
Phone-to-Skype: <a href="tel:(646)%20845-9428" target="_blank" value="+16468459428">646-845-9428</a><br>
</span><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at
6:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers!<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 14, 2017
11:45 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">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 href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.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 href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank">+1 (202)
547-0660</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202)
329-9650</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202)
738-1739</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=" target="_blank">
www.redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*parminder [mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12,
2017 12:54 AM<br>
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>>;<br>
<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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 href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank">+1 (202)
547-0660</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202)
329-9650</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202)
738-1739</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=" target="_blank">
www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
*From:*<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>>]
*On Behalf Of<br>
*parminder<br>
*Sent:* Saturday,
February 11, 2017 8:46 AM<br>
*To:* <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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 href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.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 href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank">+1 (202)
547-0660</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202)
329-9650</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202)
738-1739</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=" target="_blank">
www.redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*parminder [mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.<wbr>net</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12,
2017 12:54 AM<br>
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>>;<br>
<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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 href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbra<wbr>nchconsulting.com</a>>____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank">+1 (202)
547-0660</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-547-0660" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-547-0660</a>>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202)
329-9650</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-329-9650" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-329-9650</a>>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202)
738-1739</a> <<a href="tel:+1%20202-738-1739" target="_blank">tel:+1%20202-738-1739</a>>____<br>
<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=" target="_blank">
www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsultin<wbr>g.com/</a>>____<br>
<br>
My PGP Key:<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/p<wbr>ks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83<wbr>0097CA066684</a>>____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
*From:*<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>>]
*On Behalf Of<br>
*parminder<br>
*Sent:* Saturday,
February 11, 2017 8:46 AM<br>
*To:* <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann<wbr>.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>
</p></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></span>...</blockquote></div><br></div></div></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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>