[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Feb 25 13:51:08 UTC 2017
Dear Grec
I fully agree with Seun.
We must raise this question legally and ask for a NEUTRAL LEGAL VIEW
There is désagrément on the matter.
Several person said, there is no possibility to Immune ICANN from US LAW
Others said .it has had a precedence.
This exchange of correspondence is totally counter productive and must be
resolved properly.
I terrefort request Greg, to formulate the question/ view on the matter and
after consultation with Co-Chair ask for an international Neutral
Legal View .
Regards
Kavouss
2017-02-25 10:43 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
> On Feb 25, 2017 5:21 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Becky, thanks for your response and please see inline.
>
>
> Absent the statutory grant of authority found in California law (and the
> laws of other jurisdictions no doubt), the community powers are likely not
> enforceable.
>
>
> As argued in my previous email, based on an legal memo attached to an
> ICANN report, it is evident that ICANN can waive immunity with regard to
> operation of relevant California non profit law required for its
> accountability mechanism. I am happy to seek legal advice on this point.
> But from what looks apparent now, your above statement may not hold true.
>
>
> SO: FWIW, Can we then derive a question from this for the legal to answer?
> I think it may be better we have something officially/formerly documented
> with regards to this, otherwise we will just keep coming back to it
> everytime. It will be good to be able to provide documentation is future to
> show that it's a matter that has been discussed and brought to a "consensus
> based" conclusion.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am also confused about how one would reconcile the privileges and
> immunity approach with deliberately chosen language in the Bylaws. Under
> the US International Organizations Immunities Act, ICANN would first have
> to be an “international organization” as defined in the Act thus: For
> the purposes of this subchapter, the term “international organization”
> means a public international organization in which the United States
> participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of
> Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such
> participation, and which shall have been designated by the President
> through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the
> privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter.” 22
> U.S. Code 228. The Swiss Host State Act, 2007, has similar requirements.
>
>
> Yes, it needs action by both the Congress and the President of the US. The
> former will need to just amend some existing laws related to some
> international orgs and add ICANN somewhere in it. Simple work. And the
> President has to issue a decree under the Immunities Act.
>
> ICANN is not a treaty-based organization,
>
>
> This is not required.
>
> nor is it conducting work normally carried out by an intergovernmental
> organization.
>
>
> As shown by Jorge, this is not true.
>
>
> Turning it into a treaty-based organization
>
>
> No need to turn it into treaty based org to get US immunity.
>
> would seem to me to violate the Bylaws-mandated Core Value that requires
> ICANN to *remain rooted in the private sector*.
>
>
> There is a linguistic problem here. Private sector is understood
> differently in the US than almost everywhere else. In the US, it is just to
> be outside government, which ICANN is. Outside the US, it mostly mean for
> profit sector. ICANN is indeed outside government(s), and there is no
> proposal to change that. But it is also equally a non profit . That also I
> hope is not intended to be changed.
>
> In any case, whether non profit or for profit, everything is always
> subject to some kind of governmental jurisdiction. Being so subject does
> not change its non profit or even for profit nature. So the point is really
> moot.
>
> This language was contested on numerous occasions by members of the GAC,
> and the community repeatedly insisted on retaining this orientation. I
> think that there can be little argument that the community affirmatively
> committed to maintaining this status through the Accountability work.
>
>
> The community asked this group to consider the issue of US jurisdiction
> over ICANN. And a question can only be considered if it is open - -unless,
> sorry to use that word, we are all mutually and together fooling ourselves,
> and doing discussions that really have no meaning or purpose. I really hope
> this is not the case - -although, I must admit, despair often does arises
> that it may actually may be the case.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc
> es at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Seun
> Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 1:43 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
>
>
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2017 12:29 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>
>
> You say that a "Trump travel Ban . . . compared to
>
>
> if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former
> would have global effects on ICANN than the latter."
>
>
>
> Can you clarify how a travel ban into the US from a list of countries
> would "have global effects on ICANN" and a travel ban into Turkey from a
> list of countries not have a similar type of effect? Is this just because
> more people will want to travel to ICANN's operations in the US than those
> in Turkey?
>
>
>
> SO: It's not really because more people "want" to, it's because for ICANN
> it may be prudent at times to have the meeting in the US. When I say
> meeting, I am not just referring to the 3 global meetings alone.
>
>
>
> Why is it a global effect on ICANN if it only concerns a small number of
> countries?
>
>
>
> SO: Sometime ago I was reading an article mentioning whether I*
> organisations should cancel subsequent meetings in the US (even though I
> personally do not think it's worth it to cancel already planned Puerto Rico
> meeting) but imagine the global effects if such happen. Beyond that such
> action by US govt also cause unintended(or perhaps unnecessary)
> consequences/reactions. Like it won't be out of scope for an African govt
> who is already pissed off with .Africa[1] and second level 2 character to
> also indicate the ban as an exhibit to drive a point.
>
>
>
> Just checkout how many ICANN related articles that connects to the ban has
> been published lately so you think similar level of response would have
> happened globally if the travel ban happened in Turkey? I doubt. So it's
> not always about the few ban countries, it's about the global reaction.
>
>
>
> For clarity if ICANN were incorporated in Turkey and same banned happen,
> the global effect would have still be similar to that of the US at present.
> So the point is not that it may not have happened if ICANN was incorporated
> in Turkey (or Switzerland as Paul puts it) but the point is that it is
> unfair to say the effects to ICANN ORG/community in both scenarios is the
> same
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> 1. Ofcourse I recognise there is not light at the end of the tunnel.
>
>
>
> [Please note that I personally do not support the travel ban, nor do I
> minimize the effects it has had and continues to have on citizens of those
> countries.]
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Nigel, I am not asking about an overall immunity for ICANN but I am
> talking about specific scenario like the ones I have indicated. Maybe the
> right word isn't immunity.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2017 11:45 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>
> I think you miss the point about immunity.
>
> It's means "ICANN can do what it likes and can't be sued".
>
>
>
> On 14/02/17 09:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not a lawyer but it doesn't sound accurate to say that the effect
> of the country of (US) on ICANN is same with that of other
> countries (including the ones hosting her regional hubs) because that is
> what I think Paul may be implying here.
>
> As a simple example is a Trump travel Ban and the OFAC stuff compared to
> if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former
> would have global effects on ICANN than the latter. I for one would be
> glad if there can be immunity/exemption for ICANN(used in literary
> terms) in such scenarios
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Feb 13, 2017 7:59 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig"
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>
> Yes, I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact. Or
> put another way – it is wrong.____
>
> __ __
>
> The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in France,
> ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy authorities might,
> for example, attempt to get ICANN to follow their right to be
> forgotten. They would fail, I think, but that proposition is no
> different in kind than the idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over
> ICANN which will not change one iota if ICANN changes its
> jurisdiction of incorporation. As I have said before, the only way
> in which place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your
> words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to
> corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g. the
> implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance – it would
> change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as others have also
> noted, the corporate law of California is vital to ICANN’s current
> structure.____
>
> __ __
>
> As for your question about my professional life it is amusing –
> because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in fact,
> given exactly that advice to German businesses with operations in
> the United States. I tell them that if they want to avoid American
> law (mostly law relating to cybersecurity) the only way to do so is
> to avoid having a business presence in the US. If they want to
> forgo the market completely they can do so to avoid American law.
> But otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same thing
> about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do this for a
> living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to paying clients.____
>
> __ __
>
> It is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are making
> assertions that have no actual basis in any law that I know of.
> Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not make them so____
>
> __ __
>
> Paul____
>
> __ __
>
> Paul Rosenzweig____
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <
> tel:+1%20202-547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <
> tel:+1%20202-329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> <
> tel:+1%20202-738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=>
> >____
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
> 097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
> 0097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> >____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:____
>
> As we have repeatedly noted, the exact same thing is true of
> ICANN’s being subject to the laws of India, France and any other
> place it does business. ____
>
>
> Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this
> is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of
> incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a
> completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it
> may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition?
>
> Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business
> incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that
> the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the
> real life implications of such application -- is more or less the
> same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where
> it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and
> unambiguous response to this. Thanks.
>
> If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone
> knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can
> go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let
> the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use
> wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic
> universally known legal and political facts.
>
>
> ____
>
> Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in
> mind of Amartya Sen.____
>
>
> A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and
> self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic
> American"...
>
> parminder
>
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> Paul Rosenzweig____
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <
> tel:+1%20202-547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <
> tel:+1%20202-329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> <
> tel:+1%20202-738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=>
> >____
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
> 097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
> 0097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> >____
>
> ____
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *parminder
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:46 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann
> .org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
> jurisdiction____
>
> ____
>
> Nigel,____
>
> Thanks for your views. One gets faced by two kinds of arguments
> in favour of keeping the jurisdictional status quo -- which are
> mutually exclusive.____
>
> (1) ICANN is somehow not subject to the whole range of US law
> and executive powers, as any other US organisations is - or at
> least it is somehow felt that US law and executive power will
> never apply itself over ICANN functioning. ____
>
> (2) As you argue, ICANN is indeed subject to all US laws and
> powers, which might indeed be applied over it as necessary, but
> this is a good and a desirable thing. ____
>
> As we have no move forward at all, we must do it in stages and
> remove some arguments off the table which we can mutually agree
> to be untenable. So can we now agree that the view (1) above is
> simply untrue and naively held by those who forward it. ____
>
> We can now move to (2). First of all, this means that indeed US
> law and executive can impinge upon ICANN's policy implementation
> whenever it feels it valid to do so in pursuance of legitimate
> US public interest. Meaning, If ICANN makes a policy and does
> its implementation which is not in-accordance with US law or
> legitimate US executive will, they can "interfere" can cause
> those actions to be rolled back on the pain of state's coercive
> action. This can be for instance regarding how and what
> medicines and health related activities are considered ok by the
> concerned US regulator. (Similar examples can be thought of in
> practically every sector). Are you with me till here, because I
> think I am only making logical deduction over what you seem to
> agree with?____
>
> If so, this indeed establishes as a fact that US jurisdiction
> can, as required, impinge upon (which seen from another vantage
> is same as, interfere with) ICANN policies and policy
> implementation.____
>
> Which makes the entire exercise of our questionnaire seeking
> whether it can so happen rather needless. It of course can. ____
>
> Lets then not argue or fight over that terrain, where we have
> this agreement, about how law and executive power operates vis a
> vis organisations subject to their jurisdiction. ____
>
> That brings us to another terrain - that, as you argue, and
> others have here, that it is right, appropriate and needed that
> US law and legitimate executive power impinges upon ICANN
> functioning as and when required, becuase it is important to
> subject everything to the rule of law (and in your and many
> other people's views, ICANN can practically ONLY be subject to
> rule of US's law).____
>
> I am happy to discuss this part as long as we do not keep
> drifting back to the earlier one whereby there really seems to
> be an agreement among most of us that US law and legitimate
> executive power can indeed impinge upon or "interfere with"
> ICANN's policy or policy implementation work (even if many
> consider such interference as being good for ICANN and public
> interest) . ____
> > of the country of (US) on ICANN is same with that of other
> countries (including the ones hosting her regional hubs) because that is
> what I think Paul may be implying here.
>
> As a simple example is a Trump travel Ban and the OFAC stuff compared to
> if a travel Ban is placed on Turkey where ICANN has a hub. The former
> would have global effects on ICANN than the latter. I for one would be
> glad if there can be immunity/exemption for ICANN(used in literary
> terms) in such scenarios
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Feb 13, 2017 7:59 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig"
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>
> Yes, I refute the proposition because it is an alternate fact. Or
> put another way – it is wrong.____
>
> __ __
>
> The true fact is simple – by virture of doing business in France,
> ICANN is subject to French law. France’s privacy authorities might,
> for example, attempt to get ICANN to follow their right to be
> forgotten. They would fail, I think, but that proposition is no
> different in kind than the idea of US antitrust jurisdiction over
> ICANN which will not change one iota if ICANN changes its
> jurisdiction of incorporation. As I have said before, the only way
> in which place of jurisdiction matters significantly (or to use your
> words is of a “different order” is regarding law relating to
> corporate incorporation and governance. As to that – e.g. the
> implementation of ICANN’s actual corporate governance – it would
> change significantly if ICANN moved. But, as others have also
> noted, the corporate law of California is vital to ICANN’s current
> structure.____
>
> __ __
>
> As for your question about my professional life it is amusing –
> because that is indeed what I do for a living and I have, in fact,
> given exactly that advice to German businesses with operations in
> the United States. I tell them that if they want to avoid American
> law (mostly law relating to cybersecurity) the only way to do so is
> to avoid having a business presence in the US. If they want to
> forgo the market completely they can do so to avoid American law.
> But otherwise they cannot. And, I tell them the exact same thing
> about French and Indian law as well. In short, I do this for a
> living and yes, I say exactly the same thing to paying clients.____
>
> __ __
>
> It is not me who is “falsifying facts” Paraminder. You are making
> assertions that have no actual basis in any law that I know of.
> Repeatedly asserting them as “facts” does not make them so____
>
> __ __
>
> Paul____
>
> __ __
>
> Paul Rosenzweig____
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <
> tel:+1%20202-547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <
> tel:+1%20202-329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> <
> tel:+1%20202-738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=>
> >____
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
> 097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
> 0097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> >____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> On Saturday 11 February 2017 10:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:____
>
> As we have repeatedly noted, the exact same thing is true of
> ICANN’s being subject to the laws of India, France and any other
> place it does business. ____
>
>
> Paul, and you have missed the repeated response that of course this
> is not true (and you know it) -- the implication of jurisdiction of
> incorporation of a body, and its impact on its working, is of a
> completely different order than that of the jurisdictions where it
> may merely conduct some business. Do you refute this proposition?
>
> Would you in your professional life advice, say, a business
> incorporated in Germany but with worldwide business footprint that
> the application of German jurisdiction and laws on it -- and the
> real life implications of such application -- is more or less the
> same as application of jurisdiction and laws of all counties where
> it may conduct any business at all? I look forward to a clear and
> unambiguous response to this. Thanks.
>
> If indeed we are to keep falsifying such basic facts, which everyone
> knows well, and base our positions on that, there is no way we can
> go anywhere with this sub group. We may as well close it up and let
> the rapporteur write whatever report he may want to forward. No use
> wasting time here in trying to "prove" and reprove and reprove basic
> universally known legal and political facts.
>
>
> ____
>
> Your persistence in arguing a strawman Paraminder puts me in
> mind of Amartya Sen.____
>
>
> A perceptive book he wrote, but also speaks of Indian humility and
> self-deprecation... Wonder why no one ever wrote "The Hegemonic
> American"...
>
> parminder
>
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> Paul Rosenzweig____
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <
> tel:+1%20202-547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <
> tel:+1%20202-329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> <
> tel:+1%20202-738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=SW0awN355LgKou0VH8FoTnUMVW3Ew72doP7GYG8HOWw&e=>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=1k6KNFdJzQIC6CkW4-cXYamlUd3hWDS-W8MchdaYxlg&e=>
> >____
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
> 097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A83
> 0097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=gBJP9BR7SmJmiYPTtMNTO5cs0-iDPOyGn0HBd1gGbLk&e=>
> >____
>
> ____
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *parminder
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:46 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann
> .org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
> jurisdiction____
>
> ____
>
> Nigel,____
>
> Thanks for your views. One gets faced by two kinds of arguments
> in favour of keeping the jurisdictional status quo -- which are
> mutually exclusive.____
>
> (1) ICANN is somehow not subject to the whole range of US law
> and executive powers, as any other US organisations is - or at
> least it is somehow felt that US law and executive power will
> never apply itself over ICANN functioning. ____
>
> (2) As you argue, ICANN is indeed subject to all US laws and
> powers, which might indeed be applied over it as necessary, but
> this is a good and a desirable thing. ____
>
> As we have no move forward at all, we must do it in stages and
> remove some arguments off the table which we can mutually agree
> to be untenable. So can we now agree that the view (1) above is
> simply untrue and naively held by those who forward it. ____
>
> We can now move to (2). First of all, this means that indeed US
> law and executive can impinge upon ICANN's policy implementation
> whenever it feels it valid to do so in pursuance of legitimate
> US public interest. Meaning, If ICANN makes a policy and does
> its implementation which is not in-accordance with US law or
> legitimate US executive will, they can "interfere" can cause
> those actions to be rolled back on the pain of state's coercive
> action. This can be for instance regarding how and what
> medicines and health related activities are considered ok by the
> concerned US regulator. (Similar examples can be thought of in
> practically every sector). Are you with me till here, because I
> think I am only making logical deduction over what you seem to
> agree with?____
>
> If so, this indeed establishes as a fact that US jurisdiction
> can, as required, impinge upon (which seen from another vantage
> is same as, interfere with) ICANN policies and policy
> implementation.____
>
> Which makes the entire exercise of our questionnaire seeking
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
> ...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170225/166489d3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list