<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \,serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal00, li.msonormal00, div.msonormal00
{mso-style-name:msonormal0;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Great … so lets actually talk about OFAC, which is as far as I can tell the only specific law anyone has identified from which ICANN should be immune. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Perhaps we can all agree (whether we think OFAC is a problem or not) that there is no reason why ICANN should not seek a general license of exemption for ccTLDs? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='color:windowtext'> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Saturday 19 August 2017 07:05 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Sorry Thiago, but as I’ve said before, I think this is wrong. EXCEPT for issues relating to corporate statues (which parminder has already said should not be addressed) every country where ICANN operates does have equal de jure right to exercise jurisdiction (consistent with its own national law) and express its own national interests. That’s why, for example, Brazil arrested a Google executive for failing to comply with Brazilian legal requirements (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/business/global/top-google-executive-in-brazil-faces-arrest-over-video.html?mcubz=3">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/business/global/top-google-executive-in-brazil-faces-arrest-over-video.html?mcubz=3</a>). Personally, I think that was a mistake by the Brazilian government, but I cannot and would not deny its legal right to do as it did.</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>By arresting a google employee Brazilian gov may be able to make google act as it wishes to (hopefully, legally) "within Brazil". It cant change google's global policy. However, by arresting a google or icann employee, both organisations being HQed in the US, the US government can make google/ icann change their respective global policies. They can change how ICANN's policies impact everyone not just those in the US. I really have no problem with US gov, courts etc, being able to change ICANN's behaviour within US, that is very fine. <br><br>This is obvious and well known, but if you seek examples, you have seen gltd application book that says ICANN will work within US OFAC sanctions. Havent heard of ICANN saying they'd work within say recent Saudi sanctions on Qatar! Again, all this is well known and elementary. I really do not understand why you have been insisting on this point all the time....<br><br>parminder <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Paul Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='color:windowtext'> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 19, 2017 8:04 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Dear All,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>It is indeed difficult to deny that the authorities of a country where an entity is based have a superior (and in many respects exclusive) claim to jurisdiction over the activities of that entity. For example, the territorial State is the one with exclusive enforcement jurisdiction, so that only the local enforcement agencies have the necessary authority to compel people in the country to comply with national laws and court rulings. In the case of ICANN, if the argument is made that any country in the world could pass legislation to compel ICANN to, say, shut down the DNS, the enforcement of that legislation would still need go through action of US enforcement agencies. In other words, US authorities would have to consent to that (a veto power if you will) and they would have themselves to enforce the required action (one could also think of the need for US courts to recognise foreign judgments, in exequatur proceedings, for them to be enforceable in the US, and the execution would have to be carried out through US organs).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>So let us not overlook this fact with the argument, which is simply not true, that all countries are in a similar position as the country of incorporation of ICANN to impact on ICANN's activities. Other countries do not have as much jurisdiction as the United States to influence and determine the course of many of ICANN's activities (in fact, the core of ICANN's activities), and it is with a view to ensure that they all participate on an equal footing on all Internet governance-related issues that immunities from US jurisdiction must be sought (N.b. jurisdiction includes prescriptive, adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Thiago</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><hr size=3 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF639725><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>De:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] em nome de parminder [<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br><b>Enviado:</b> sábado, 19 de agosto de 2017 3:21<br><b>Para:</b> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br><b>Assunto:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Lest my response be mis-interpreted, I should clarify that:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The incidence of and accountability to US jurisdiction and public laws wrt ICANN as US incorporated entity is not at all comparable to that of other countries' jurisdiction. It is a simple and obvious fact (though I know often contested here). </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>In the circumstances, getting immunity from US jurisdiction/ public laws is a much higher order problem that to obtain it from other countries. Right now that is the key problem confronting us.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Having said this, I stand by the proposal for an international agreement whereby all countries extend such immunity to it in one go...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>parminder </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>On Saturday 19 August 2017 09:56 AM, parminder wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:06 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Dear Parminder</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Can you please provide a list? That is, can you specify which US laws you wish immunity from under your tailored approach? And, can you also advise, will you also argue (I assume the answer is yes) that ICANN should seek immunity from the public law of other countries? </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br>Yes, ICANN very well should seek such immunity from all countries. As immunity from US law can only be provided by US gov, immunities from public law of all other countries will require consent of all other govs. The normal way is to obtain such immunity at one time under an international agreement singed at the same time but all countries, rather than go to about 200 countries one by one. I am very much for such an international agreement providing such international status and corresponding immunity to ICANN. If US were to agree I am sure all outer countries would quickly agree to such an agreement..<br>parminder<br><br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>Paul Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='color:windowtext'> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 18, 2017 2:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <a href="mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr" target="_blank"><raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr></a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Now for the secons point raised by you. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thursday 17 August 2017 02:29 PM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>2. How would being subject to the California Corporations Code articulate itself with being immune? In fact this point is related to the first one. The CCC serves as a basic framework of corporate governance, something which is absent from most if not all international organisations. It imposes duties on ICANN and its constituents (board, etc.) and gives to some persons to sue ICANN over these. A blanket immunity would negate this. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I have said this repeatedly, that I do not seek full but tailored immunity alone, which allows the operation of california corporations code over ICANN, and also any other such law that is required for ICANN to work in terms of its organisational or technical processes. I quote from the 'solution" part of my email to which you respond<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>"<span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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)."</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Does this not already answer your point? And I also did give a link to an<a href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html" target="_blank"> ICANN commissioned report </a>which provides examples of US based NPOs still subject to corresponding state's corporation law but provided partial immunity under the mentioned US act. <br> <br>parminder <br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2017-08-16 10:36 GMT+02:00 parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Issue:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Various branches and 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, as a US non-profit organisation, 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 href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire" target="_blank"> various public submissions</a> to this group, including <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire?preview=/64066898/64948025/ICANN_jurisdiction_questionaire_-_JNC_response-0001.pdf" target="_blank">this one</a> , and also <a href="https://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf" target="_blank">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Proposed solution:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Additional notes: </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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 href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html" target="_blank">commissioned this report </a>on the jurisdiction issue). </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#888888'>parminder </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> - <a href="https://twitter.com/rbl0112" target="_blank">@rbl0012</a> - M: <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>+33 7 86 39 18 15</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br><br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>