[Ws2-jurisdiction] AOC Termination Letter Emphasizes Commitment to US Jurisdiction -- RE: Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Tue Jan 10 05:29:41 UTC 2017

Hello Phil,

Thanks and there is this section "...which requires community agreement to
modify.."

So I think we are in order. No?

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 10 Jan 2017 1:08 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I
> note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments
> between ICANN and the United States has been posted at
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/
> strickling-to-crocker-06jan17-en.pdf
>
>
>
> From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve
> Crocker on January 3, 2017:
>
>
>
> *ICANN’s commitment to remain* a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered
> in the United States of America* with offices around the world is
> embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community
> agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which  *specify that ICANN’s
> California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
>
>
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM
> *To:* MSSI Secretariat
> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some
> support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be
> able to gain consensus support.  Below (and attached in redline) is my
> suggested combination:
>
>
>
> Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been
> unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability
> mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide
> documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific
> laws.
>
> Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative
> jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual
> operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please
> provide documentation, including  specific examples, references to specific
> laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
>
> I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding
> Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <
> mssi-secretariat at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10
> January is at 13:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> *Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
>
> Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
> *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <
> milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> What time is the call tomorrow?  I apologize, but I lost track of our
> scheduling decisions.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>;
> 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with
> finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning
> its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far
> too much time on this questionnaire matter.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM
> *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L'
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.”  If
> that is my choice I choose none.  If the idea of separation gains any
> traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any
> better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu <milton at gatech.edu>]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out.  Some
> feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing.
> While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the
> idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not
> going to try any longer to change their minds.
>
>
>
> MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive
> at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach”
> are they not?
>
> The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the
> others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable
> to a broader range of WG participants.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=hkHuO6pAbFTyCqdbOGTfbuIMRHWwpEYn1sKtA6h-Tpg&e=>
> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/a27b95f7/attachment-0001.html>