<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" 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>).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" 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.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" 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:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><ul><li>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)?</li><li>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?<br></li><li>Who is this recommendation being made to? </li><ul><li>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.) </li><ul><li>Would the ICANN Board accept these recommendations, and could it then impose these recommendations on the ccNSO PDP? </li><li>Could it impose these recommendations on all ccTLD managers (whether or not ccNSO members)? </li></ul><li>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.).</li></ul><li>Putting all this aside, would there be broad support in this Subgroup for either of these recommendations?</li></ul><div>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? </div><div><ul><li>Make a recommendation that, if adopted, would compel ICANN to seek to immunize ccTLDs from seizure in judicial actions anywhere in the world? </li><li>Or just in the US, allowing seizure to be attempted in any other court? </li><li>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)? </li><li>(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? <br></li></ul></div><div><br></div><div>I would be curious to know how members of the Subgroup would answer these questions, and any other questions that come to mind.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Dear Jordan</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Dear All, </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Thank you very much for your prompt reply as a participant to the CCWG
and indirectly to the subgroup.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">The example I gave was not and is not and will not be categorize as
dispute.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">There was no dispute there was referring to ccTLD as being an ATTACHED
PROPERTY.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">This ihas Nothing to do with the Policy that you referred to.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 6.75pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">You are trying to associate that to PDP which is
incorrect.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Please allow us to do our work and kindly not be confused
with the <span> </span>PDP.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Perhaps there are people who wish to do so which is
totally counterproductive. </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Regards</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Kavouss <span></span></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear all, dear Kavouss<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your email.</div><div><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/resourc<wbr>es/pages/governance/bylaws-en/<wbr>#annexB</a>></div><div><br></div><div>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.or<wbr>g/adoption-framework-interpret<wbr>ation-cctld-delegations-and-<wbr>redelegations</a> for 2015 Board adoption of the report). </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>There is another PDP to come, on how to resolve disputes regarding the delegation, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>All best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_2037126725872654255h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 September 2017 at 02:47, Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear Jordan</div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">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 .</div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">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 </div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">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</div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">Fortunately New Zealand or U.K. ccTLD were not yet subject to such interference </div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">Pls kindly clarify your position . In other word are you supporting such interference or opposing to that</div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">Reply to Milton</div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">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 </div><span class="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-"><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">Regards</div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature">Kavouss </div><div id="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262AppleMailSignature"><br>Sent from my iPhone</div></span><span class="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-"><div><br>On 15 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div></span><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div class="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-m_-5013874903450818262WordSection1"><span class="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-">
<div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Dr. Milton Mueller<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Professor, School of Public Policy<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Georgia Institute of Technology<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;text-decoration:none"><image002.jpg></span></a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div></blockquote><span class="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br><span>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a></span><br></div></blockquote></span></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span>-- <br><div class="m_2037126725872654255m_3856785694990382428gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" dir="ltr"><p style="font-size:12.8px;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><font color="#ff3399" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:16px;white-space:pre-wrap"><b>Jordan Carter</b></span></font></p><p style="color:rgb(80,0,80);line-height:1.38;font-size:12.8px;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);line-height:1.38;font-family:Arial;font-size:13.33px;font-weight:bold;white-space:pre-wrap">Chief Executive</span></p><p style="color:rgb(80,0,80);line-height:1.38;font-size:12.8px;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(255,51,153);font-family:Arial;font-size:13.33px;font-weight:bold;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">InternetNZ</span></p><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><p style="font-size:12.8px;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);line-height:1.38;font-family:Arial;font-size:13.33px;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Office: </span><a style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" href="tel:04-495%202118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">+64 4 495 2118</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"> </span><span style="line-height:normal;font-size:12.8px">| Mobile: <a style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" href="tel:021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> </span><span style="line-height:normal;font-size:12.8px">| Skype: jordancarter</span></p><p style="color:rgb(80,0,80);line-height:1.38;font-size:12.8px;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:normal;font-size:12.8px">Email: <a style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.n<wbr>z</a></span></p><div style="font-size:12.8px"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="color:rgb(80,0,80);line-height:1.38;font-size:12.8px;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:normal;font-size:12.8px"></span></p></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://2017.nethui.nz/" target="_blank"><img src="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B15WUb9m72A9SFpTMi1sUFhWdHM&revid=0B15WUb9m72A9eEF5TW45UUhqYzFmay9BbTNETHhsRmdTTS93PQ"></a></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>
</span></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>