<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://14/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Good evening:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b>Response to the questionnaire -
Just Net Coalition</b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b>Just Net Coalition has responded to
questions 4a and 4b, only. My comments are as follows:</b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">4a: For two decades the Rest of the
World had tolerated if not acquiesced in the prevalence of US and
California jurisdiction over ICANN. Most other governments and DNS
operators have not suffered from this arrangement. There have been some exceptions.<br><br>However, during the past six months the
situation in the US and internationally has radically changed. The
actions of the US administration and US Courts are no longer
perceived as normally predictable and benign.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Accordingly, I consider that it would
be quite reasonable to give serious consideration to alternative
arrangements that would alleviate in due course, present risks and
uncertainties.<br><br>The fact that Work Stream 1 reached a
conclusion to the effect that ICANN's location of incorporation would
not be changed, is – I would submit – no longer relevant. The US
political context in which the initial Transition was achieved has
been radically altered.<br><br><b>Question 4b:</b> Just Net Coalition
have brought forward three alternatives:</p>
<ol>
<li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b>Incorporation under
international law</b>. I see no substantive objection to using the
existing model of the Red Cross/Red Crescent organisation, as
described, with appropriate safeguards for multi-stakeholder
governance.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b>Legal immunity under US law:</b>
I would not support such an arrangement. I suppose that such
immunity could readily be revoked by the US. Also It would have to
be compatible with the degree of oversight and control by the
Empowered Community under the Transition.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b>A standing Backup Option: </b>I
assume that this would have to go well beyond existing normal
duplication and escrow of ICANN's technical services. In which case
creating and maintaining such an option would be expensive in the
long term and a permanent drain on the management. I would not
support it.<br><b><br></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b>Interim
arrangements:</b></p></li></ol><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">
Any alternative arrangements for incorporation or jurisdiction would
take significant time to agree and implement. Meanwhile, the most
sensitive aspects of the present situation could be addressed:<br><br>- All
court cases involving a TLD, particularly a ccTLD, should be brought
in the country of incorporation of the TLD entity concerned,<br><br>- all
ICANN operations, should be off-limits for any OFAC sanctions.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Furthermore,
the necessary movement of ICANN away from US law, will impose on the
Board and Organization a much more proactive approach to the
operation of Registries and Registrars under its jurisdiction,
including competition policy and consumer protection in regulated
sectors. That however was explicit in the original model for ICANN.
It would be a return to the sources.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Regards</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">CW</p><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; "> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></body></html>