<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Since there is no response on how and when
was it decided to chose only OFAC and choice of venue as the
issues to give recs on, and how the issue of possible immunity
from US jurisdiction excluded from this exercise, i want to put
it on record before today's meeting (which I will not be able to
attend) that I, and perhaps others, would like to put up a draft
rec on the immunity issue for the group.... It is up to the
group to accept it or not.... If it is unable to reach consensus
it is possible that I, and perhaps others, may want to put it as
a dissenting view, that will be requested to be attached to the
group's report. Please let me know the process and time line for
submitting (1) draft rec on customised immunity for ICANN, (2)
in case there is no consensus on it. to give a dissenting view.
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Also, I disagree with the manner that the
current report does a very partial job of the mandate given to
it, cherry picking one or two aspects of the mandate and
ignoring other, without a due and clear process. I also disagree
with the manner in which its narrative glosses over the major
discussions ans dynamics in the sub group, especially around the
issue of US gov's jurisdiction and possibilities of seeking
customised immunity under the US IOI Act..... It is most
astounding how the report manages to completely avoid even a
mention of the immunity issue which was hotly argued and
discussed by the sub group, and on which so many members had
such strong views. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">It can hardly be said that there is a
consensus on the group's outputs as mentioned in the draft
report...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder </font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 11 October 2017 06:52 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fd7e4585-20ab-373b-9cab-a604ec46441f@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 11 October 2017 03:40
AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+aOHURbvJSdo0zSJTykPJSCppFiC8j83zZnvcDS50jyw2hRmw@mail.gmail.com">
<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">I have received no
comments on the Draft Subgroup Report.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Greg, I was able to see it only just now and have the following
quick comments before today's meeting. Will give more comments
later on<br>
<br>
At 2 places the report notes that the sub group got into
discussing to topic of of "changing ICANN’s headquarters or
jurisdiction of incorporation".<br>
<br>
As I have previously mentioned on this list, I recall no real
discussion at any time on actually "changing ICANN's headquarters
or jurisdiction of incorporation". What did happen were repeated
discussions on possibility of seeking immunity for ICANN under the
US's International Organisations Immunity Act... Why dont we
mention the actual discussion that took place in the group --
however inadequately, despite many members repeated requests for a
proper discussion -- then put in what was hardly discussed?<br>
<br>
Next, the report says that it chose to priortize the two issues of
OFAC and choice of jurisdiction in contracts among many possible
issues. I just want to be reminded which decision it refers to,
and taken when. In any case, I disassociate myself from any such
decision. But please do point me to the relevant decision of the
sub group. <br>
<br>
I am also not clear about <br>
<br>
"The Subgroup understands that it cannot require ICANN to make
amendments to the RA or the RAA " (said with regard to choice of
jurisdiction recs)..... Why so? Sorry if this has already been
discussed, but fell be grateful if the reason is explained to me.<br>
<br>
I do also note that there is really no recommendation with regard
to choice of jurisdiction issue but just a series of musings. This
fact that no rec is being made in this regard should be very
clearly stated.<br>
<br>
So, finally the only substantial thing I understand the group to
be saying is that it wants ICANN to be more specifically clear
that it will try to seek OFAC licence for all otherwise legitimate
cases, and that ICANN should explore (only explore) general OFAC
licences -- which rec is also made with too much defensiveness. <br>
<br>
And it wants to say nothing on jurisdictional immunity issue, in
fact completely censor the issue out of the report, even in parts
which just factually deal with discussions that happened in the
group. <br>
<br>
<br>
More later, <br>
<br>
thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
PS: Excuse me for the hurried comments, I am at some place right
now where I am very constrained in time. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+aOHURbvJSdo0zSJTykPJSCppFiC8j83zZnvcDS50jyw2hRmw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have added a
summary of the Choice of Law and Choice of Venue
Recommendation to the Executive Summary, based on the
current state of that Recommendation in the Google doc.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The Draft Report is
attached in Word and PDF versions. The Google doc is
(still) at <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?usp=sharing"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?usp=sharing</a></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I will circulate that
Recommendation next, in Word and PDF versions, as it now
stands.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">These documents will
be discussed on tomorrow's call. An agenda will be
circulated shortly.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>