<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)"><!--[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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
/* 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.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.m2037126725872654255m3856785694990382428gmail-
{mso-style-name:m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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:1134713996;
mso-list-template-ids:1425849676;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1139497343;
mso-list-template-ids:1343668950;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
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>First, and most importantly, this is an issue seeking a problem. Since it is motivated by the prospect of US court behavior interfering with ccTLDs, it is at least useful to acknowledge that the only time anyone asked the US courts to do so they rejected the request. There is no reason that I know of to think that any subsequent request would be treated differently – and, indeed, as I wrote in an earlier post every reason to think that US courts will reason as the DC Circuit did and follow its rationale. In short, the first point is that no recommendation on this issue is needed at all because it is addressing a non-concern that is really just a non-threat, kind of like making sure ICANN is not subject to a Board coup. You can imagine it but it isn’t realistic and thus not worth our time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If we were to think about it, then I have to imagine that the proponents are looking at the second bundle of categories. That is, my reading is that proponents are asking that ICANN be recommended to seek immunity from seizure under law. Since one can readily imagine such seizure actions be lodged globally, and since as we’ve discussed frequently ICANN is subject to legal process almost everywhere it operates, the only recommendation that makes any sense would be to seek some form of global immunity from seizure for ccTLDs. Stated thus, this becomes another of those “nice to have international law” issues that in practice has no chance of being realized, and thus should be opposed on impracticality grounds.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My view is that this issue does not merit further consideration and should not be the basis of any recommendation to the Board<o:p></o:p></p><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"><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> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 18, 2017 2:50 AM<br><b>To:</b> Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><br><b>Cc:</b> ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues<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'>All,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>First, I would like to clarify that Jordan is a participant in this Subgroup (see <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction">https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Second, the "seizure" of a ccTLD (if that were allowed) would lead to a request for redelegation of the ccTLD. Presumably, the current manager of the ccTLD would dispute that redelegation demand. The PDP that Jordan refers to would cover all disputes relating to redelegation of a ccTLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>It seems we are being asked to recommend that the ccNSO PDP on ccTLD disputes exclude disputes relating to attempted redelegations result from a seizure. This would mean that any dispute mechanism for ccTLD redelegations would be unavailable to the current ccTLD manager. This raises a few issues:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Can this Subgroup and the CCWG make a recommendation on the scope of a ccTLD PDP (here, that the upcoming ccNSO PDP exclude disputes of ccTLD redelegations arising from a seizure of the ccTLD)?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Can this Subgroup and the CCWG make a recommendation that ccTLD managers will be barred from using the ccNSO dispute resolution procedure (DRP) to contest a redelegation because of the circumstances leading to that redelegation?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Who is this recommendation being made to? <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><ul type=disc><ul type=circle><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>If it is ICANN, then a "recommendation" is in fact something that the ICANN Board must adopt and put into action unless the Board rejects it. (So, "recommendation" is probably an understatement of the true effect in that case.) <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul></ul><ul type=disc><ul type=circle><ul type=square><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Would the ICANN Board accept these recommendations, and could it then impose these recommendations on the ccNSO PDP? <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Could it impose these recommendations on all ccTLD managers (whether or not ccNSO members)? <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul></ul></ul><ul type=disc><ul type=circle><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>If it is the ccNSO, then that runs into the issue (faced several times in WS1) of the capacity of the CCWG to make recommendations directly to SO/ACs and not to the ICANN BOard. My recollection of WS1 is that we determined the CCWG could not not make recommendations to any SO/AC. Even if the CCWG could make such a recommendation, what would the force and effect of such a recommendation be? What power in our charter or the ICANN Bylaws would force the SO/AC to comply with this recommendation? Unless there is such power, then the SO/AC would be free to reject the recommendation. (So, "recommendation" is probably an overstatement of the true effect in this case.).<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul></ul><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Putting all this aside, would there be broad support in this Subgroup for either of these recommendations?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>On the other hand, it may be that we are not being asked to limit the ccNSO or ccTLD managers in any way. In other words, a dispute regarding an attempt to redelegate a ccTLD as a result of a seizure could use the new ccNSO DRP. If that's the case, what are we being asked to do? <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Make a recommendation that, if adopted, would compel ICANN to seek to immunize ccTLDs from seizure in judicial actions anywhere in the world? <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Or just in the US, allowing seizure to be attempted in any other court? <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Or everywhere but the home court of the country associated with ccTLD (keeping mind that ccTLDs are managed in various ways, by various kinds of entities)? <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>(Assuming for the sake of argument that we have the power to make such a recommendation in the first place,) would there be broad support in this Subgroup for any of these recommendations? <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>I would be curious to know how members of the Subgroup would answer these questions, and any other questions that come to mind.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</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-right:0in'><div><div><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Dear Jordan</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Dear All, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Thank you very much for your prompt reply as a participant to the CCWG and indirectly to the subgroup.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>The example I gave was not and is not and will not be categorize as dispute.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>There was no dispute there was referring to ccTLD as being an ATTACHED PROPERTY.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>This ihas Nothing to do with the Policy that you referred to.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>We have full right to recommend who such case should be dealt with without recognizing any right for any Government or its Court to deal with that issue.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>You are diverging the view as we are not talking of delegation or redelegation or transfer or revocation .We are talking of seizure. Thjis is purely a jurisdictional issue and has no relevance to PDP.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>You are trying to associate that to PDP which is incorrect.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Please allow us to do our work and kindly not be confused with the PDP.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Perhaps there are people who wish to do so which is totally counterproductive. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Kavouss </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</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-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear all, dear Kavouss<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you for your email.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>The PDP I am referring to is that set out in the ICANN bylaws for the ccNSO: <<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexB" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexB</a>><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I have tried to be as clear as I can be on the process question. The policy regarding delegations of ccTLD managers is in RFCs and has most recently been understood through the lens of Framework of Interpretation, a joint effort between the ccNSO and the GAC (see <a href="https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-and-redelegations" target="_blank">https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-and-redelegations</a> for 2015 Board adoption of the report). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Arising from that work the ccNSO has commenced a PDP dealing with the first of two issues, that being how to deal with the retirement of a ccTLD.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is another PDP to come, on how to resolve disputes regarding the delegation, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It seems to me that the example you raise below is one that would give rise to a dispute, and it is the mechanism to resolve such disputes that is not clear today. That's why the ccNSO will conduct a PDP to make it clear.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My interventions have aimed only to remind everyone in this group that the CCWG can't make policy on this subject. It has no authority or scope to do so, because policy on these ccTLD subjects is the responsibility of the ccNSO. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My purpose in offering that reminder is so that all of the participants in the group can choose where to focus their discussion. There might be other matters where the group can make recommendations with more impact. The group might think that offering views on those is more important. Or, it might think that offering views for the ccNSO to consider is more important. I haven't got a view either way - the ccNSO's sole responsibility for making policy on ccTLD matters isn't in doubt.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I just want to make sure that everyone is clear about what this group can do, and on the specific point of ccTLD policy, what it cannot do. I have no view about the GNSO. I am not suggesting this group or the CCWG "consult" the ccNSO per se. Even if the ccNSO could respond with an opinion about jurisdiction matters, that would still be of no use to the CCWG in making recommendations. Any recommendations that dealt with ccTLD policy would lead to the CCWG's recommendations on the subject being unable to be adopted by the ICANN Board.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Since this is only one very narrow matter in the wide range of jurisdiction-related topics, I am sure there is no need to close this group or deny Greg the right to keep doing the hard work he is doing to be the rapporteur in this interesting and vital area.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>All best regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 18 September 2017 at 02:47, Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</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-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Jordan<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>I am not sure what type of PDP you suggest for unilateral decision of American court for delegation or transfer of .ir to third party .<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>We wish to limit such type of order as well as the potential influence of US government or any other government to interfere with the ccTLD of any other country based on founded or non founded claims <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>If neither ICANN not any other entity is authorised to intervene or interfere with ccTLD of any country or any geographic territory that equally applies to US government, US court and say other government and its court<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>Fortunately New Zealand or U.K. ccTLD were not yet subject to such interference <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>Pls kindly clarify your position . In other word are you supporting such interference or opposing to that<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>Reply to Milton<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>If you believe that the sub group should consult GNSO and Jordan and Nigel believe that the subgroup should consult ccNSO to address such disturbing unilateral influence of US government and its court and any other government and its court then we need to close the shop of Grec and stop all discussions <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal>Kavouss <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><p class=MsoNormal><br>Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>On 15 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor blue'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters can be made. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>That’s fine. The same is true of the GNSO and the ASO for that matter. This subgroup identifies problems and recommends solutions. <br>It’s up to others to develop policies to implement the solutions. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Dr. Milton Mueller</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Professor, School of Public Policy</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Georgia Institute of Technology</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none'><image002.jpg></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><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></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#FF3399'>Jordan Carter</span></b><span style='font-size:9.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Chief Executive</span></b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:#500050'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#FF3399'>InternetNZ</span></b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:#500050'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Office: </span><span style='font-size:9.5pt'><a href="tel:04-495%202118" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>+64 4 495 2118</span></a></span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'> </span><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>| Mobile: <a href="tel:021%20442%20649" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>+64 21 442 649</span></a> | Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:#222222'>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a></span><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:#500050'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt'><a href="https://2017.nethui.nz/" target="_blank"><span style='border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=100 height=100 style='width:1.0416in;height:1.0416in' id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:~WRD000.jpg" alt="Image removed by sender."></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></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" 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><o:p> </o:p></p></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">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><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>