<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 19 August 2017 08:58 PM,
Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00f301d318ff$c09147b0$41b3d710$@redbranchconsulting.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">snip .......<span
style="color:windowtext"> I am happy to stop discussing
general propositions it you will – which is why I asked for
specifics. OFAC? Yes, I understand that. What else?</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, have provided many examples many times, and repeatedly
linked docs, like <a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire?preview=/64066898/64948025/ICANN_jurisdiction_questionaire_-_JNC_response-0001.pdf">this</a>
and <a
href="https://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf">this</a>
, but happy to present some of them again. Also, I have already
clarified that the authority of a state over private persons and
organisations within its territory covers thousands of aspects and
issues and can never be enumerated as items in a list. Also, new
expressions of such authority can manifest at any time, it
represents the almost unlimited sovereign power of its citizens, and
so on. <br>
<br>
But you want some examples beyond OFAC, let me offer some. <br>
<br>
First, is the authority of, and know similar actions of domain name
seizure by, US Customs. I'd quote from a<a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire?preview=/64066898/64948025/ICANN_jurisdiction_questionaire_-_JNC_response-0001.pdf">
Just Net Coalition submission </a>to ICANN also mentioned above.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">US
executive agencies have routinely considered the DNS as a
legitimate
lever to exercise its coercive powers. Especially for
entities
outside the US that it seeks to impact, and who are
provided DNS
service from an entity within the US, it has
unhesitatingly employed
US jurisdiction over the US based DNS provider to pull the
DNS plug
on the “erring non US based entities”.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">Please
see the below news reports on hundreds of such cases.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/">https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/</a></font></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="sans-serif"><a
href="http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/11/seizing-domain-names-without-coica.html"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/11/seizing-domain-names-without-coica.html</font></a></font></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">ICANN,
as a US non profit, is no different than a US-based
registry or
registrar located in the US, in terms of how a US
authority can and
will employ it for coercive actions against “errant
entities”.
Since most entities use a .com, .net, etc domain name,
till now the
means of enforcement have been</font></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">through
the corresponding registries, mostly Verisign. However, in
case of
gTLDs operated by a registry outside the US, ICANN alone
can provide
the means of coercive action – that of disabling the gLTD.
There is
no question that, as Verisign has so often been forced by
US agencies
to disable</font></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; orphans: 1"
align="left">
<span style="display: inline-block; border: none; padding:
0cm"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">domain
names, sooner or later so will ICANN be forced. Doing this
just to
uphold US law would constitute a constraint on ICANN's
responsibility
to act in the interest of global Internet community.</font></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" align="left">(quote
ends)<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
Can you explain why a prospective application of OFAC over a cctld
or gtld is a problem (which I think it very much is) but the likely
problems with US Customs seizing a gTLD through ICANN is not (when
very symmetrical actions have taken place earlier)? <br>
<br>
Next, I can point to the problem that can occur coming from the
powers and remits of various regulators in the US. FCC, for
instance, has right now only forborne its authority over Internet
names and numbers. It has statutory authority over telecom numbers,
and as per current interpretation of law in the US the Internet is a
telecom service (which interpretation may soon be revised, but that
precisely is the point, state's role and authority can keep
shifting, we can never precisely enumerate it). Earlier FCC had
forborne its regulatory authority over the Internet which at a
latter point it asserted (the famous net neutrality order).
Simiarily, it is entirely possible that FCC vacates its forbearance
wrt to Internet names and numbers and decided to exercise regulatory
authority over ICANN and its policy decisions, ICANN having no
statutory role or authority in the US, and FCC being the official
authority in this area. How do you deal with this problem?<br>
<br>
Next, an sector regulator, say the FDA, can exercise regulatory
authority wrt a gLTD that is specific to its sectoral remit, like
.health, .pharmacy, etc in FDA's case, and take objections to some
exclusion-inclusion principles that may be written in that gTLD's
rules, or insist that certain different principles be put there.....
It could in the future be done say by transport regulator for .cars,
........ the possibilities are endless. Are we equipped to deal with
this problem?<br>
<br>
Then of course is the oft discussed issue that courts of the US
apply US law and even public policy. (You want me to show you a
quote from a US judgement to make this elementary and well
recognised principle? I can do it.) As a US based private org, ICANN
is subject to authority of almost every US court, which will always
test any issue primarily from US law and public interest point of
view, before anything else. This can very likely be prejudicial to
interests outside the US, but that is the nature of any state, its
accountability is to its citizens first and foremost....<br>
<br>
Such issues are endless... There is no way we can find individual
solutions to this endless list of issues with US's unilateral
jurisdiction over ICANN. It can only be addressed by seeking
immunity, which is tailored to the extent that ICANN is still able
to function properly as an organisation within the US. Or it is not
addressed at all. And such an option is specifically available
through US's International Organisations Immunities Act. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00f301d318ff$c09147b0$41b3d710$@redbranchconsulting.com">
<div class="WordSection1"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span>
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><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 07:02 PM, Paul
Rosenzweig wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Exactly right Raphael. To cite just a
few examples, here are categories of what would be
considered public laws in the US from which I assume nobody
thinks ICANN should be exempt – criminal law; occupational
health and safety law; general public zoning laws relating
to urban development. The list is just a starter ….. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If I’m wrong – if you really do think
that ICANN should be exempt from the criminal laws of the
countries where it operates – then perhaps you should say
so. I would profoundly disagree, but at least we could
discuss substance.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Dear Paul<br>
<br>
We are not inventing host country agreements here. This isnt
being proposed for the first time. There is well established
set of precedents and established practices in this regard. If
a WIPO employee, WIPO having judicial immunity in Switzerland,
commits a murder in Geneva, or even a financial fraud,
everyone knows what to do and what will happen. Lets come out
of this contesting elementary and well-established facts. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And to be clear I assume, as well, that
nobody thinks that the ICANN officials and institutions in
Istanbul and Singapore and wherever else ICANN has offices
should be exempt from Turkish or Singaporean law. I
certainly don’t. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Yes, not in criminal matters. And as I mentioned in an earlier
email, it is possible for ICANN to also seek immunity in these
jurisdictions as well. But that is not so important, these
offices do not make and implement policy. Respective
jurisdictions cannot force them to change ICANN's global
policies. Even ifthey foolishly get into trying such a thing,
ICANN can simply close down its office there and shift to
another place, without affecting ICANN global work in any way.
But not with US gov's actions or orders against ICANN. That is
the difference.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My PGP Key: <a
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 19, 2017 8:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <a
href="mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br"
moz-do-not-send="true"><thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: ISSUE -
unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Parminder: you seem to be wanting
immunity from "US public law," but unless you can
define that more precisely than "all the laws that
affect ICANN except the CCC" I would not be inclined
to see that in as a recommendation in the final
report. Yes, I have read all the materials that you
have submitted, and yes there are many NGOs that have
obtained (some form of) immunity under the said US
act, but unless we can know immunity from what, that
does not tell us much. And even if we did, we are
still stuck with the problem of defining what we would
want ICANN to be immune from. (except if we go with
what I understand to be Thiago's stance) "Public law"
is extremely ambiguous and equivocal and is not a
category we can rely on. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thiago: is your stance one of seeking
complete immunity? And besides, I am not sure how
granting ICANN immunity of any sort would foster more
participating in ICANN-related internet governance
decision-making and debate. And don't you think it would
then make ICANN <i>less </i>accountable? If I had to
rank organisations in terms of accountability, to me
ICANN ranks much higher than any treaty organisation (UN
or OECD for example) <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2017-08-19 14:03 GMT+02:00 Thiago
Braz Jardim Oliveira <<a
href="mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br</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>
<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" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr size="3" align="center" width="100%"></span></div>
<div id="m_-4386758965471615858divRpF639725">
<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" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>]
em nome de parminder [<a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<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"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">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"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Dear
Parminder</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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"><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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Paul
Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">My
PGP Key: <a
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<a
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">On
Thursday 17 August 2017 02:29
PM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size: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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">"</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;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="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size: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"
moz-do-not-send="true"> 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>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">2017-08-16
10:36 GMT+02:00 parminder
<<a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:</span><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
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"
moz-do-not-send="true">this
one</a> , and also <a
href="https://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing
list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
<br clear="all">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">-- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Sciences
Po Law School
2014-2017</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">LinkedIn</a> - <a
href="https://twitter.com/rbl0112"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">@rbl0012</a> - M: +33 7 86 39 18
15</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><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" moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">LinkedIn</a>
- <a href="https://twitter.com/rbl0112"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">@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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>