<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Issue:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Various </font><font face="Verdana">branches
and </font><font face="Verdana">agencies of the United States
of America - from judicial and legislative to executive,
including its many regulatory agencies - have exclusive (like no
other country's) direct legal remit and power over ICANN, </font><font
face="Verdana"> as a US non-profit organisation, </font><font
face="Verdana">with respect to practically every aspect that can
conceivably be affected by state power (their range is so
enormous that it is vain to begin listing them). These agencies/
y can and do exercise them at any time in pursuance of US law
and policies, that have the primary purpose to uphold US public
interest and US constitution. Many examples of such powers and
their possible use have been given in<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire">
various public submissions</a> to this group, including <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire?preview=/64066898/64948025/ICANN_jurisdiction_questionaire_-_JNC_response-0001.pdf">this
one</a> , and also <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf">this</a>.
Since ICANN is supposed to make policies and implement them with
regard to the global DNS in the global public interest and not
just US public interest, such unilateral availability and use of
legal state power with one country, the US, over ICANN is
untenable, and goes against basic principles of democracy
including of "no legislation/ policy without representation".
These principles are recognised by UN instruments as human
rights, and most countries today including the US are built over
them. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Proposed solution:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"> ICANN be granted immunity under the
International Organisations Immunities Act of the US. This
immunity should be tailored/customised in a manner that ICANN
still remains subject to non profit law of the state of
California under which it is registered, and its organisational
processes function, and other such US laws and institutions that
are strictly required for ICANN to be able to satisfactorily
carry out its organisational, policy and technical functions (an
assessment with respect to which should be undertaken asap).<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Additional notes: <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">If I may add, this has been "THE" jurisdiction
question since the WSIS days if not earlier ( actually since the
time ICANN was formed). Whether or not we are able to agree to
recommending any solution to this jurisdiction question, it will
be an unacceptable travesty of facts and history if this group
does not accept this as an important, if not "THE", jurisdiction
question in relation to ICANN. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Whether or not this group is able to contribute
to global public interest by making any positive progress on the
question of ICANN's jurisdiction, following the principles of
good governance and democracy, let it not regress and actually
serve to obfuscate what is seen and known as the "ICANN's
jurisdiction" question by everyone, by the global public at
large. (For instance, in ICANN's own internal discussions like
when the ICANN chair <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html">commissioned
this report </a>on the jurisdiction issue). <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">If we can accept that this is a key
jurisdiction (even if not "THE") question, but are not able to
agree on a proposed solution, let us just write that in our
report. But let us not contribute to alt-truth, a very dangerous
phenomenon that is often spoke of nowadays. Both as a group, and
individually as responsible persons - given an important global
political responsibility -- we owe at least that much to
ourselves. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">As for myself, and the groups that I work
with, we will stand resolutely till the end in the path of any
such synthesis of artificial reality - when a global group tasked
to address the decades old democratic question of unilateral
jurisdiction of one country over the global governance body,
ICANN, comes up with a report that asserts that this is not a
jurisdiction issue at all, or at least not an important one. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>