[Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation

Wed Mar 1 16:53:35 UTC 2017

Paul & Jorge,

In a sense, you are both right.

The questions I posed were not directly about immunity.  Rather, they
inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's
characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b)
whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by
Parminder.

However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be
true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of
immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to
the law of any jurisdiction).

The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity.

The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but
doesn't require it.

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about
> immunity.  J  The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN
> should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically
> agreed upon by all citizens of the world.  Certainly, in the context of
> what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it
> seemed that was what the questions were about
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> 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
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM
> *To:* paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's
> statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
>
>
>
> Dear Paul
>
>
>
> Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of
> immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but,
> again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in
> the questions…
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul
> Rosenzweig
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04
> *An:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's
> statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
>
>
>
> Seun/All
>
>
>
> This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement.  It is the
> first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well
>
>
>
> 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
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McAuley,
> David
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's
> statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
>
>
>
> I agree with Paul.
>
>
>
> The only thing to add concerns the fourth point.
>
>
>
> I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that
> so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot
> effectively avoid that jurisdiction.
>
>
>
> In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final
> judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even
> globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid
> a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets,
> and effects with it.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> *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:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM
> *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on
> Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
>
>
>
> Greg/All
>
>
>
> My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity):
>
>
>
> *First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with
> Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
>
>
>
> Not applicable.
>
>
>
> *Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been
> democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied
> to ICANN?  Are you aware of any such body of law?*
>
>
>
> I do not agree.  To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any
> law being created that has been democratically arrived at  by all citizens
> of the world.  To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that
> no law at all can apply to ICANN.  I am not aware of any body of law that
> would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by
> nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all
> of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of
> law are themselves democratically representative.
>
>
>
> *Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied
> to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
>
>
>
> I do not agree.  US law can and will apply to any institution that is
> subject to it.  That include people who are US citizens; companies that do
> business in the US and anyone who is present in the US.  The same of course
> is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over
> citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests
> that effect their country.  If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean
> “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well.  First, of course, there is
> no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized.
> Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the
> laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability.  In the
> absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable.
>
>
>
> *Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a
> jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of
> incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment
> by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
>
>
>
> I do not agree.  This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in
> Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am
> familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations.
> So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot
> effectively avoid that jurisdication.  I would also note that the
> underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered
> by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should
> not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by
> artificial means of closing its operations.
>
>
>
> *Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a
> body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US
> nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of
> enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's
> accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
>
>
>
> As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant.  [It is also wrong, but you
> insisted on assuming the premise.]   More to the point, the status of ICANN
> as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms
> that we just spend many thousands of hours creating.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements
> in the last meeting about GAC participation
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position
> of GAC members regarding ICANN.  It was not clear to me that GAC members
> actually held the beliefs ascribed to them.  We were not able to determine
> this on the call, one way or the other.  I've now excerpted the relevant
> sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio.  These
> sections are attached.  In addition to the question about the GAC, these
> statements raise a few other questions:
>
>
>
> *First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with
> Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
>
>
>
> *Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been
> democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied
> to ICANN?  Are you aware of any such body of law?*
>
>
>
> *Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied
> to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
>
>
>
> *Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a
> jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of
> incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment
> by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
>
>
>
> *Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a
> body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US
> nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of
> enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's
> accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170301/cb4a008b/attachment-0001.html>