<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Parminder,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My point is that we need to be clear about which "layer(s)" are being discussed. I didn't say they were independent of each other. The layers of jurisdiction are an essential part of our analytical framework, so understanding the relationship that a statement, claim, position or activity has to this analytical framework is critical. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It would be helpful to the Subgroup if you can relate your statements above to the layer(s) of jurisdiction, and also clarify your terms, since some of the terms you use do not have consistent or commonly understood meanings.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In particular, the term "public law" is not typically used in analyzing U.S. law to the best of my knowledge and experience, and has no meaning I'm aware of in relation to U.S. law. It may have other and varying meanings in other legal systems.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In order for me (and the Subgroup) to understand the points you are trying to make here, I have a number of questions that would really help clarifying your terminology and your points. I apologize that there are a fair number of questions, but I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, and these are the questions I had as I was trying to figure it out. (You should read the subquestions below each question before answering each question set, since the subquestions are in part my own attempts to understand what you meant.) </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I look forward to your answers.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. Can you explain the value and purpose of distinguishing between "public law" and "private law"?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. Can you explain what you mean by "public law"? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">a. Do you mean all of the laws of a jurisdiction (e.g., California statutes, regulations and case law) or do you mean only a subset of those laws? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">b. Can you also explain what you mean by "private law"?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">c. Does "private law" only refer to the agreements made between parties to a contract (which, technically speaking, aren't "laws" at all)?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">d. Or is some part of a jurisdiction's statutes, regulations and case law (at least for a common law jurisdiction) also "private law"? If so, which part? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">3. If some statutes, etc. are "public" and others "private", how would one distinguish between private and public laws (since they are not characterized that way)? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">4. Does the distinction between "public law" and "private law" relate in any way to the party that is applying the law?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">a. For example: If a government agency seeks to enforce a law against a private party, is that public law? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">b. If a private party seeks to enforce that same law against a private party, is that private law?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">c. Does this change if the government agency sues the private party in court, as opposed to using other methods (e.g., fines)?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">d. Does this change if the private party sues the other private party in court, as opposed to making a demand and seeking compliance without going to court?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">e. How about if a private party seeks to enforce the terms of a contract? Is this private law when making a demand? Is it still private law if the private party sues in court?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">f. What if enforcement of the term requires analysis under a statute (e.g., a non-compete clause may not be enforceable if it violates laws against certain types or features of non-compete clauses)? <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">g. Is that statute a private or public law?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">h. In this question 4, would any answer be different if a government entity was seeking to enforce the contract?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">i. In this question 4, would any answer be different if a private party is seeking to enforce a contract with a government entity?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">5. What is the "hierarchy" of layers of jurisdiction? What makes one layer more important than another? What makes this hierarchy "strong"? Can you cite any source for this hierarchy?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">6. Which of our layers of jurisdiction is the "public law jurisdiction"? </span><font face="verdana"><span style="font-size:12.8px">If it's more than one, how does it relate to each one?</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Turning to your statements, it would be helpful to the Subgroup (including me) if you would clarify the following:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. What do you mean when you say "<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">public law of applicable public law jurisdiction will triumph what is put in an contract and its interpretation by any given "choice of law"."?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">a. What is the context of this statement? Are you referring to litigation? Or are you referring to a dispute between private parties that is not in court (e.g., a disagreement over the meaning of a contractual term?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">b. When you say "public law ... will triumph what is put in an contract" do you mean that a contractual provision that violates the law will not be enforceable? Does this "triumph" only come because the court hearing the dispute rules that the provision violates the law? Or could this triumph come in a dispute between two parties that is still just a private disagreement?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">c. When you say "public law ... will triumph what is put in an contract and its interpretation by any given "choice of law"" what do you mean? Do you mean that a court will always apply the law of its own jurisdiction even if there is a choice of law clause specifying a different jurisdiction (and even if the parties interpret the contract using the law of that different jurisdiction)? Or do you mean that the decision of a court interpreting a contract using the law of another jurisdiction due to a "choice of law" provision will somehow be overruled by some sort of non-judicial government action?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">d. By "public law of applicable public law jurisdiction" do you mean the statutes, regulations and case law of the applicable jurisdiction (e.g., California law if California law applies because of the <u>Incorporation</u> and <u>Headquarters Location</u> of ICANN)? How does this contrast with the public law of the jurisdiction specified by the "choice of law" provision in the contract? (For example, if someone were to sue ICANN in California but the "choice of law" provision specifies Swiss law.)</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana"><span style="font-size:12.8px">e. When you refer to "its interpretation by any given "choice of law"" who is doing the interpreting? Do you mean a court's interpretation of a contract using the jurisdiction specified in a "choice of law"? Or do you mean a party's interpretation using that jurisdiction? Or do you mean that the "choice of law" (which is a contractual provision, not a jurisdiction) can somehow act to interpret the contract? (if so, this will require some explanation, because I can't follow this. I assume this is not what you mean, even though it's the literal interpretation of what you've said.)</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana"><span style="font-size:12.8px">f. How does this statement relate to enhancing ICANN's accountability?</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana"><span style="font-size:12.8px">2. You say "</span></font><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">It s therefore more important to consider the application of public law jurisdiction and how it impacts ICANN's policy processes...."</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">a. "More important" than what?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">b. When you say the "application of public law jurisdiction" who is doing the applying?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">c. How does one <i>apply</i> "public law jurisdiction"? Do you mean applying the laws of a particular jurisdiction? Or specifically only the "public laws" of a particular jurisdiction? (Again, I need to understand what you mean when you say "public law") Or do you somehow mean that the "public law jurisdiction" is being applied (as distinguished from applying the laws of that jurisdiction)? If so, what is the distinction?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">d. Are you drawing a distinction between "public law jurisdiction" and some other kind of "jurisdiction"?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">e. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana">What are specific "applications" of "public law jurisdiction"? How might each "impact ICANN's policy processes"?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana">f. </span><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">How does your statement relate to enhancing ICANN's accountability?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">g. In particular, how does the concern with "ICANN's policy processes" relate to enhancing ICANN's accountability?</span></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><p style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="Verdana"></font></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font face="Verdana">3. You say "</font></div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12.8px">There may be other issues on the private law side, but they are secondary to the above key one.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">" </div></span><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">a. </div>What is the "private law side"? </span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Do you mean all disputes involving contracts, whether litigation, arbitration or merely a private disagreement? Or do you only mean private disagreements? <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Or do you mean all disputes between private parties, whether contractual or not?</div></span></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">b. In di</div>sputes involving contracts<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">, do you mean disputes</div> where the only question is whether a party breached the terms of the contract, and no statutory law is being applied to make that determination? If that's the case, would it still be on the "private law side" if case law (in a common law jurisdiction) was cited by the decision-maker? Or is it the "private law side" only if no statutes, regulations or case law is involved?</span></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">c<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">. Why would issues on the private law side be secondary to the statement you refer to as the "above key one"?</div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">d. How does this relate to enhancing ICANN's accountability?</div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Thank you again for answering these questions. This will be very helpful in understanding your points. Once we understand them, it will be possible to discuss them with a common understanding.</div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Best regards,</div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div></font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px">646-845-9428<br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:35 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">Yes Greg, <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">They may be layers involved, but it </font><font face="Verdana">must </font><font face="Verdana">also be
remembered that these layers are not independent of one another
-- there is a strong hierarchy involved. Especially, public law
of applicable public law jurisdiction will triumph what is put
in an contract and its interpretation by any given "choice of
law". <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">It s therefore more important to consider
the application of public law jurisdiction and how it impacts
ICANN's policy processes.... <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">There may be other issues on the private law
side, but they are secondary to the above key one.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder</font></p><div><div class="h5">
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_-8579987162686694774moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 08 April 2017 06:48 AM,
Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default">All,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">I think it would be helpful to
remind ourselves of the "Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction"
set out in Work Stream 1. It would also be helpful to be
accurate, specific and clear which layer one is referring to
when talking about "jurisdiction," or the effect(s) of
"jurisdiction." </div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">The word "jurisdiction" is being
used very loosely in some of our discussions. It is not
particularly helpful to use the term "jurisdiction" vaguely
or ambiguously, or as if it were a monolithic concept.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Here is a summary of the "Multiple
Layers of Jurisdiction," adapted from the Subgroup's working
document of the same name (underlined text is the suggested
short name for the layer):</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><b><span style="color:black">MULTIPLE LAYERS OF JURISDICTION</span></b></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">1.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Jurisdiction of <u>Incorporation</u></span></b><span style="color:black">.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The jurisdiction in which an entity
is legally incorporated.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">2.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Jurisdiction of <u>Headquarters
Location</u>.</span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The jurisdiction in which an
entity’s headquarters is physically located.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">3.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Jurisdiction of other places of <u>physical
presence</u>.</span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">Other places where an entity
maintains an ongoing physical presence<u> </u>sufficient
to subject the entity and its actions to some or all of
the laws of that jurisdiction (as Incorporation and
Headquarters Jurisdiction do).</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">b.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">This may also determine whether an
entity can be subject to suit in the courts of that
jurisdiction (i.e., “<u>personal jurisdiction</u>”).</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">4.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Jurisdiction for the law to be
used in interpretation of contracts, etc. (<u>Governing
Law/Choice of Law</u>) and actions of the Empowered
Community.</span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The jurisdiction whose laws will be
used to interpret the rights and responsibilities of
parties to a contract, whether in the normal course of
business or during a dispute (e.g., litigation,
arbitration or other dispute resolution mechanism). </span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">b.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">More broadly, the substantive law to
be applied during a litigation, arbitration or other
dispute resolution mechanism.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">c.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">In matters involving agreements, the
governing law may have been specified in the agreement
(e.g., in a “choice of law” clause). </span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">d.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">If no governing law is specified or
in non-contract cases, the governing law will be
determined by the judge, panel or other decision-maker
using principles of “conflicts of laws”, typically after
submissions by the parties.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">5.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Jurisdiction for the physical
location of litigation of disputes (<u>Venue</u>)</span></b><span style="color:black">.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The forum in which the dispute will
be heard:</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.75in"><span style="color:black">i)<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The type of proceeding (e.g.,
litigation (including the type of court), arbitration
(including the provider/rules), IRP, etc.).</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.75in"><span style="color:black">ii)<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The provider of that proceeding
(e.g., Federal or national court, state or local court,
an arbitration provider, etc.).</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.75in"><span style="color:black">iii)<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">The physical location (if any) in
which the proceeding will take place (e.g., the country,
state/province, city, etc.).</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.75in"><span style="color:black">iv)<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">A separate but related concept is “<u>subject
matter jurisdiction</u>” (i.e., whether the court or
other forum has the power to hear a case about a
particular type of subject matter)</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">6.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Relationships with national
jurisdictions for particular domestic issues.</span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">This “layer” was listed as one of
the layers of jurisdiction in Annex 12.</span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.25in"><span style="color:black">7.<span> </span></span><b><span style="color:black">Meeting NTIA requirements.</span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail-MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:black">a.<span> </span></span><span style="color:black">This “layer” was listed as one of
the layers of jurisdiction in Annex 12.</span></p>
<div><font color="#000000">We should make a conspicuous
effort to relate any discussions of "jurisdiction" back
to the specific "layer(s)" of jurisdiction we are
referring to. This will help us have more effective
discussions and to produce more useful output from those
discussions.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">Greg</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_-8579987162686694774gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-8579987162686694774mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="m_-8579987162686694774moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-8579987162686694774moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>