<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 http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<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:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1946499851;
mso-list-template-ids:-854013318;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2131626186;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1977980406 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Some people have shown a lack of awareness of the nature of the Appeals Court decision regarding the .IR ccTLD Paul is discussing below. So here is our summary of its import:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The latest decision in the ICANN case departed sharply from prior legal precedents. The court looked beyond the narrow issue of whether the .IR ccTLD was attachable property. It assumed, “without deciding,” that
“the ccTLDs the plaintiffs seek constitute ‘property’ under the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act and, further, that the defendant sovereigns have some attachable ownership interest in them.” Thus ICANN’s weak arguments against the property status of TLDs had
no impact on the decision. Instead, the court refused to allow the .IR domain to be seized because:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">“the court has the “authority” to “prevent appropriately the impairment of an interest held by a person who is not liable<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">in the action giving rise to a judgment” — i.e., we are expressly authorized to protect the interests of ICANN and other entities. Because of the enormous third-party interests at stake—and because there is no
way to execute on the plaintiffs’ judgments without impairing those interests—we cannot permit attachment.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">By “requiring ICANN to delegate ‘.ir’ to the plaintiffs,” the court opined, the plaintiffs “would bypass ICANN’s process for ccTLD delegation” and this would have a harmful impact on the global DNS and on ICANN
itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">So, to summarize: TLDs may well be attachable property, but in this case, and in most conceivable ccTLD redelegation cases, the court decided that court-ordered seizure of the ccTLD would impair the interest
of ICANN in a globally acceptable delegation process and possible also impair the interest of its registrants.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 4:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agree on all 4 points and the conclusion <br>
<br>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal <span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Virtualaw LLC<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1155 F Street, NW<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suite 1050<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Washington, DC 20004<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">202-559-8597/Direct<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">202-559-8750/Fax<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">202-255-6172/Cell<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twitter: @VLawDC<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPad<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Farzaneh<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding the question of precedent – it depends what you mean
<span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">😊</span>. The US court system is mostly geographically based. As a result the only court that can bind the entire court system of the nation is the US Supreme Court. As a matter of pure law, the decision
in the .IR case, which was handed down by a court of appeals in the District of Columbia (i.e. the US capitol – Washington) is binding, mandatory precedent ONLY here in Washington DC. That having been said:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">Since the US government is here in Washington, many important and precedent setting cases (like this one) are decided in Washington and then the rest of the country’s courts tend to follow the lead of the
DC court – not because they are legally required to do so, but because in our system it is rare (not unheard of, but rare) for courts outside Washington to purposefully set up a conflict with the DC court.
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">This is especially so because the court in Washington is considered by most to be the second most important and influential court in the country, after the US Supreme Court. So much so that 3 of the current
Justices (there are 9 total) were first judges in the DC court.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">It is also likely to be followed outside of DC because it is actually the “right” decision (to the extent anything in law is ever “right”). There was no disagreement in DC – 3 judges all voted the same
way (and affirmed a 4<sup>th</sup> lower court judge who came to the same answer through a different argument).
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">Finally, note that in cases like this, the lawyers only get paid if they win. Having lost the .IR case so decisively, it is unlikely that many lawyers will want to waste time and money trying again.<o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think ICANN won a significant victory in the .IR case that will be very, very likely to hold up in the long run. At least that is what I would advise a client if they asked me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<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"><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/"><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">
<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">
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>farzaneh badii<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction <<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In the .IR case, the court did not decide on whether ccTLD is a property or not. Anyhow, I do not think we should go into that discussion. I think the important thing to find out is whether
the court case in .IR is precedential. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I don't think the second part of your solution would work Thiago, if jurisdictional immunity is not granted to ccTLDs ( I don't know how we can get such jurisdictional immunity and don't forget
that some ccTLD managers are totally private and not government run).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The below might not be enforceable:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">"</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">ICANN Bylaws an exclusive choice of forum provision, whereby disputes relating to the management of any given
ccTLD by ICANN shall be settled exclusively in the courts of the country to which the ccTLD in question refer." </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">First of all not many ccTLDs have contracts with ICANN. Secondly, in third party claims or disputes, for example in case of initiating attachment of a ccTLD as an
enforcement of a monetary compensation, this clause might be challenged and might very well be ineffective. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Farzaneh </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<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">
<p class="MsoNormal">You can make such assertions all you like, but it doesn't make it necessarily so.<br>
<br>
The best I can offer by way of certainty in the matter is "we don't really know, but we can take some guesses".<br>
<br>
The difference between the DNS and spectrum is that spectrum exists per se. The DNS only exists becuase it was designed and constructed.<br>
<br>
I could start a different DNS tomorrow. It would not get wide use, but it would not differ in any way from the existing DNS.<br>
<br>
Furthermore possible new technologies can outdate the current DNS (I'm thinking of blockchain) just like SMTP outdated and made X.400 useless.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/08/17 11:52, Arasteh wrote:<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">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear All<br>
ccTLD at any level shall not be considered as property or attachment at all.<br>
gTLD including ccTLD are resources like orbital /spectrum which are not at possession of any entity but could be used under certains rules and procedure established for such use<br>
Any action by any court to consider it as attachment is illegal<br>
and illegitimate as DNS shall not be used as a political vector or means against any people covered under that DNS.<br>
Being located in a particular country does I no way grant / provide any legal or administrative or judicial right to that country . DNS is a universal resources belong to the public for use under certains rules and procedure and shall in no way be used asa
vehicle for political purposes.<br>
We need to address this issue very closely and separate political motivation from technical use.<br>
Regards<br>
Kavouss<br>
Sent from my iPhone<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">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On 23 Aug 2017, at 08:52, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
please excuse my ignorance, but have domain names not be seized as "assets" or "property" in the US under the application of domestic law?<br>
<br>
Wikipedia info is here: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites" target="_blank">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites</a><br>
<br>
If a second level domain is subject to potential seizure, why not a TLD?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
Von: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] Im Auftrag von Nigel Roberts<br>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 08:44<br>
An: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs<br>
<br>
Milto<br>
<br>
There is no authority at all for this Claim, in law, as I suspect you know.<br>
<br>
As I suspect you also know very well, the nearest evidence that might support such a Claim is that one of the contentions in /Weinstein/ was that a ccTLD (three of them, if I remember correctly) could be garnished under the "state law" of DC. (I know technically,
DC is not a state of the Union, but I don't know the US correct term-of-art for 'state or capital region')<br>
<br>
Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on one's point of view) it was not necessary for the Court to decide on this claim by the Judgment Debtor. This means that the idea that US courts might either have either or both of :-<br>
<br>
(a) legal jurisdiction over the ownership of the rights represented by a ccTLD delegation<br>
<br>
(b) the desire to exercise such (lack of desire to address a particular contention usually leads judges in common-law systems to be able conveniently to find a creative ratio that finds other reasons that the case can be decided<br>
<br>
remains a completely open question.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that additional hints for future litigants (as you know, common-law judges do that too) appear to have been given in the Weinstein judgment as to whether the rights in law enjoyed by a ccTLD manager (whatever they might be) MIGHT constitute property
or not, but this remarks don't even amount to /obiter dictum/ - they are just hints at a possible road of future judicial travel and any court seised of a future Claim is entirely free to ignore them.<br>
<br>
And, even so, those hints don't address the question of /in rem/ at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
As you can see, I (along with some others in the ccTLD community) havefollowed, and analysed this case carefully and in some detail.<br>
<br>
We are aware of no other possible legal authority that addresses whether ccTLDs are property (let alone whether that property, if it is property, is subject to /in rem/ jurisidiction).<br>
<br>
Unless others have additional information?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Nigel Roberts<br>
<br>
PS: I would also commend others to read Farzaneh and Milton's ccTLD paper.<br>
<br>
<br>
<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">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On 22/08/17 22:31, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Issue 3: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Description: US courts have in rem jurisdiction over domain names as a<br>
result of ICANN's place of incorporation<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
What is the evidence for this claim?<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<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><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>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>