[Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Mar 22 05:11:07 UTC 2017
Becky, apologies for the enormous delay in responding. Please see inline..
On Wednesday 01 March 2017 08:05 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
> If we assume for the moment that these pose a threat to ICANN as a
> practical matter, there would be the same or similar problems if ICANN
> was principally headquartered in other jurisdictions.
>
These issues will not exist either (1) if ICANN works under intentional
law and not any national law, or (2) ICANN even as registered under
national law (US for instance ) is given jurisdictional immunity.
(1) is the more perfect and sustainable (and democratic) solution, but
it would take time, and therefore at the present it is worth considering
and focussing on (2).
> So, I think the question comes down to this:
>
>
>
> 1. Given the fact that laws vary from nation to nation, and that
> any nation that has effective jurisdiction over ICANN may attempt to
> enforce its laws via ICANN, do the benefits of constituting ICANN as
> an international organization in with privileges and immunities in a
> particular jurisdiction outside the US outweigh the disadvantages of
> doing so?
>
Sure, this is a good assessment to be done collectively. What do you (or
others) think are the disadvantages to of such an arrangements?
> (My read as a US lawyer is that ICANN would not qualify for such
> status under the US statute.)
>
Why when International Fertilizer and Development Corp can get it ICANN
cant -- if may require putting its name in an existign legislation by a
samll amendment perhaps, but that is all Why you say it cannot, can you
please elaborate. I have asked a number of times that we seek "nuetral
outside legal advice on this point. I think we must, as a key possible
direction for us to move.
>
>
> In weighing the costs and benefits above, should we not also
> acknowledge that even if some country granted ICANN privileges and
> immunities, it would continue to have meaningful and substantial
> activities in other countries, including the United States, thus
> subjecting it national law anywhere it conducts sufficient business to
> create long-arm jurisdiction?
>
This has been discussed several times. As you have never ever heard of
Indian law and courts taking on ICANN (unlike US which often do) the
fact is that a jurisdiction where an entity is not legally incorporated
(or is incorporated but provided legal immunities) has very little legal
remit on its functioning. In any case, at least all countries have a
similar remit, and therefore that is not such a problem. It is the
enormous inequality which is the problem - between US's legal control
over ICANN and those of other jurisdictions (which is very little) .
parminder
>
>
>
> Again, asked in my personal capacity.
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:17 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's jurisdiction
>
>
>
> Greg, thanks for the below framing. Let me try to put in my response
> to it.
>
> About (1) below, the problem has not just been a lack of discipline of
> people keeping on jumping ahead to likely remedies. It is as much
> about that clear problems have been identified, and they have neither
> been argued to not exist, not do we as a group accept them as
> problems. Ii is this that causes a stalemate. Lets just take one
> category of oft mentioned problems, of the OFAC variety. Many
> expressions of this category of problems have been stated here. No one
> has made the case that these problems do not exist -- if there is any
> such case I am happy to hear it. . But neither we, as a group, have
> accepted them as being problems with the current US jurisdiction of
> ICANN. That is what causes frustration. Rather than clearly accepting
> them as problems that must be addressed (and I must repeat, this is
> just one category of them), the argument we often hear is -- that may
> be as it is, but any alternative would be worse. What then is the
> option for those who present these problems than to to actually try to
> speak about possible alternatives, and how they can work and not in
> fact be worse than the current situation?!
>
> Another category of problems is with regard to the known seizure of
> dotcom domains by US custom authorities for alleged IP violations by
> forcing verisign to act as per their orders. For a gTLD, the order
> will simply be directed at ICANN. No one has shown us why and how
> would US customs treat ICANN differently than verisign, in pursuance
> of what it considers as their legal duty.
>
> These seizures by US Customs of domain names for alleged IP violation,
> by ordering US organisations that allot and control them, also
> directly shows that any other US agency will do so a similar thing in
> due enforcement of its mandate. No argument has been forthcoming why
> this would not be so.
>
> Then, we already have US courts having exerted their jurisdiction over
> the question whether ICANN's allocation of domains names is lawful or
> not (as per US law). This act of exerting jurisdiction is a problem
> enough, for the global public not contributing to US law, and not
> willing to be dictated by it, whatever be the final decision by these
> courts.
>
> All these are problems enough - these are not small matters. Are we
> ready to list them as problems accepted by the group to be so, whether
> or not there are solutions for them or not, including whether any
> proposed solution is better or worse then the current situation? This
> is the question to the group and the chairs. Doing that would be going
> by the workplan of identifying problems first before we move to
> plausible solutions. The questionnaire we sent out is just one input
> into the exercise of identifying and listing problems, it is not the
> whole exercise. I think we clearly agreed to this. The information
> that we may receive will complement all that which has already been
> contributing in many discussion in this group.
>
> Having said this, I agree with you that at the present stage it is
> best that we moved forward with your option 2.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:02 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Jorge touches on an important point in terms of our working
> method: "immunities and privileges are something to be discussed
> if need be *under possible remedies to identified problems." *
>
>
>
> That reflects the working method adopted by the group.
> Nonetheless, this discussion of "immunity" has cropped up several
> times before the Subgroup has identified any problem supported by
> the Subgroup that calls for immunity as a possible remedy.
> Sometimes (as now) these discussions are at significant length and
> seem to take up much of the working energy of the Subgroup.
>
>
>
> At this point, we can do one of two things:
>
>
>
> (1) *Suspend any further discussion of immunity unless and until
> the Subgroup identifies a problem that calls for immunity as a
> plausible remedy to that problem*. Problems can be "identified"
> from items in any of several sources: proposals from participants
> in the Subgroup, Questionnaire responses, the review of ICANN's
> litigation, or possibly ICANN Legal's responses to our questions.
> An item should not be considered an "identified problem" until the
> Subgroup supports that designation (i.e., an item is proposed and
> discusse and the Subgroup supports designating it as a problem for
> purposes of this Subgroup).
>
>
>
> (2) *Directly consider and resolve the threshold question of
> whether immunity can and should be a remedy that this Subgroup
> would recommend. *This question needs to be answered before we
> move, if at all, to "subsidiary questions" such as "Is immunity
> available to ICANN?", "How does one get such immunity?", "What
> does such immunity actually cover?", "What are the consequences of
> such immunity?", "Can this immunity be customized in some
> fashion?", "Can such immunity be waived by ICANN (either on a
> case-by-case basis or generally)?", "What are the conseqences of
> such waiver?," "How can such immunity be challenged or revoked?",
> "How would these questions be answered differently under the laws
> of the US and under the laws of a selected set of other
> jurisdiction?", etc. *If we decide now that immunity is not a
> remedy this Subgroup would recommend, these other questions do not
> need to be considered. *If we decide that immunity is a remedy
> this Subgroup would potentially recommend, then we can seek
> answers to those subsidiary questions in an organized process of
> the Subgroup, including requesting legal advice.
>
>
>
> Option 1 is one that we've tried, but it has not succeeded (at
> least not for very long). (As Mark Twain once said, "Quitting
> smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times."). If we decide
> to re-try Option 1, then it will need to be strictly adhered to
> (and enforced, if need be).
>
>
>
> Option 2 is one we have flirted with but have never fully
> committed to (due to attempts to adhere to Option 1, on the one
> hand, and the tendency to mix this threshold question in with the
> subsidiary questions, on the other hand). Escalating these email
> threads and informal discussions to a focused Subgroup discussion
> and resolution of just the threshold question could greatly
> benefit this Subgroup. If we can answer this threshold question
> now, then we can either (if we answer "no") put the immunity
> question to rest for this Subgroup; or (if we answer yes), we can
> suspend further discussions of the "subsidiary questions" until we
> identify a problem that calls for immunity as a plausible remedy.
>
>
>
> Either way, we will be able to move past the immunity question and
> devote our current working energy to the litigation review and
> analysis, the Questionnaire response review, identification and
> discussion of potential problems for consideration by the
> Subgroup, and consideration of the answers from ICANN Legal (when
> received).
>
>
>
> *Given how far and how often we have gone down the path of the
> "immunity discussion" in some form, and since we may actually be
> honing in on an answer to this threshold question, I suggest that
> the Subgroup strongly consider Option 2.*
>
>
>
> I look forward to your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:42 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>
> Dear Becky,y
>
>
>
> Apart from possible initial discussion during the very early
> Frankfurt F2F meetings (February 2015… I wasn’t in Frankfurt,
> but I don’t recall that this issue had been really discussed
> in depth and less excluded from the ws2 work on
> “jurisdiction”), I guess we would need some clear basis in the
> work stream 1 recommendations, which are the ones which laid
> down our community-wide agreements and defined the scope of
> work for work stream 2.
>
>
>
> My feeling is that no decision to exclude was taken, that we
> still have to look into potential problems (on the basis of
> the ongoing fact-finding exercises) and that immunities and
> privileges are something to be discussed if need be under
> possible remedies to identified problems.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:*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>] *Im Auftrag von
> *Burr, Becky
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 27. Februar 2017 18:51
> *An:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
> jurisdiction
>
>
>
> Sure, will have to go back through the F2F meeting transcript,
> but I think the discussion took place in the first F2F meeting
> in Frankfurt in January 2015, with one of the outside experts
> who was pushing the idea
>
>
>
> *From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2017 11:38 AM
> *To:* Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
> *Cc:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; ws2-jurisdiction
> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>; parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
> jurisdiction
>
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2017 22:26, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:.
>
> My larger point remains – this question (re privileges and
> immunities) was asked and answered in WS1.
>
> SO: I for one would appreciate a reference to this for the
> record so I can confirm if we are talking about similar
> context. Would you mind providing a reference where the
> question and response was documented Becky?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> *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
> *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:06 AM
> *To:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Blog post on ICANN's
> jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
> So in the name of making ICANN more independent of the US
> government, you want to subject it to what would
> undoubtedly be a politically contentious and years-long
> process of legislation by the U.S. Congress
> (Republican-dominated) and would require the agreement a
> President whose platform vowed to never let ICANN be free
> of the U.S. government.
>
>
>
> Really smart.
>
>
>
> Does the word “backfire” have any meaning to
> non-Americans? If not, check out definition #2 here:
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=backfire+definition&*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_webhp-3Fsourceid-3Dchrome-2Dinstant-26ion-3D1-26espv-3D2-26ie-3DUTF-2D8-23q-3Dbackfire-2Bdefinition-26-2A&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lFzxyNZsqPq3dQCf2tQLLZwXRtWJNr01a16Lb6Zo_d8&s=2vjNdjcujIA_f13AAKVmN8mF_RYRvQZJ-bBgxoQ4Dd8&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto: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>
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> <tel:+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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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>
> <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>
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> <tel:+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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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>>
>
> [mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> <tel:+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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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>
> <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>
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:+1%20202-547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:+1%20202-329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> <tel:+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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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=0x9A830097CA066684
> <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>>
>
> [mailto: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>
> <mailto: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) . ____
>
> Your only problem with
> immunity seem to come up with regard to
> criminally fraudulent
> activities. You give the examples of IOC
> and FIFA but I have not found
> they having any special criminal
> immunities. I may not have
> looked up well, but did they? Were
> they not finally raided by
> both Swiss and US authorities. On the
> other hand there are many
> international organisations with legal
> immunities that have been
> gooing great global public interest
> work without corruption.
> Interpol hasnt started to take money to
> make international warrants
> disappear, not, more humbly, the
> International Fertilizers
> Development Centre, immunised under
> the relevant US Act, and which
> enters into contracts worth
> millions every years for
> globally distributed projects, has been
> known to do so....
>
> (FIFA and IOC become corrupt
> because of commercial thinking
> completely overpowering public
> service ethics -- and if ICANN
> becomes so it will also be ore
> likely becuase of this reason.
> But et us not get distracted. )
>
> And if indeed we are so
> concerned about ICANN's abuse of power
> and possible frauds and
> corruption, we should have let a
> stronger and more agile
> community accountability mechanism get
> established, like the
> membership based one, and with lower
> thresholds of triggering
> community action... That is where the
> mistake was made, and can
> still be corrected down the line. Do
> not throw the world at the
> mercy of US law and executive action
> for this purpose, especially
> when it related to to an
> infrastructure which today
> underpins almost every social system.
> This is not just some sports.
> (No hurt intended to sports fans,
> I being one.)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> ____
>
> On Saturday 11 February 2017
> 02:16 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:____
>
>
>
>
> ____
>
> and innumerable
> others. In the circumstances, the real
> waiver across all
> sectors and laws would
> be seek immunity under the US
> International
> Organisations Immunity
> Act. Would you not prefer this
> route? If not, why
> so? ____
>
>
> Because I do not want
> ICANN to have immunity.
>
> I have been involved in
> this community since before it was
> called 'ICANN', including
> the gTLD-MoU and the IFWP.
>
> I have seen ICANN behave
> as an autocrat robber baron and
> deprive people of their
> property.
>
> Fortunately, we have made
> great strides since then.
>
> Accountability work,
> between 2003 (in the case of ccTLDs) up
> to last years' transition,
> as well as the fact that, both
> staff and Board now have
> personal trust, that was totally
> absent 15 years ago.
>
> But both organisations and
> personnnel can change.
>
> Institutional immunity
> leads to corruption. I do not want
> ICANN to become a FIFA, or
> IOC.
>
> And the recent .AFRICA
> case shows, the checks and balances
> of the US judicial system
> appear to work reasonably well (I
> personally remain uneasy
> about the covenant of immunity but
> I expect you have no
> problem with that).
>
> I trust this explains why
> some people - and I am one - may
> have a diametrically
> opposed view to yours when it comes to
> ICANN immunity.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
>
>
> Your only problem with
> immunity seem to come up with regard to
> criminally fraudulent
> activities. You give the examples of IOC
> and FIFA but I have not found
> they having any special criminal
> immunities. I may not have
> looked up well, but did they? Were
> they not finally raided by
> both Swiss and US authorities. On the
> other hand there are many
> international organisations with legal
> immunities that have been
> gooing great global public interest
> work without corruption.
> Interpol hasnt started to take money to
> make international warrants
> disappear, not, more humbly, the
> International Fertilizers
> Development Centre, immunised under
> the relevant US Act, and which
> enters into contracts worth
> millions every years for
> globally distributed projects, has been
> known to do so....
>
> (FIFA and IOC become corrupt
> because of commercial thinking
> completely overpowering public
> service ethics -- and if ICANN
> becomes so it will also be ore
> likely becuase of this reason.
> But et us not get distracted. )
>
> And if indeed we are so
> concerned about ICANN's abuse of power
> and possible frauds and
> corruption, we should have let a
> stronger and more agile
> community accountability mechanism get
> established, like the
> membership based one, and with lower
> thresholds of triggering
> community action... That is where the
> mistake was made, and can
> still be corrected down the line. Do
> not throw the world at the
> mercy of US law and executive action
> for this purpose, especially
> when it related to to an
> infrastructure which today
> underpins almost every social system.
> This is not just some sports.
> (No hurt intended to sports fans,
> I being one.)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> ____
>
> On Saturday 11 February 2017
> 02:16 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:____
>
>
>
>
> ____
>
> and innumerable
> others. In the circumstances, the real
> waiver across all
> sectors and laws would
> be seek immunity under the US
> International
> Organisations Immunity
> Act. Would you not prefer this
> route? If not, why
> so? ____
>
>
> Because I do not want
> ICANN to have immunity.
>
> I have been involved in
> this community since before it was
> called 'ICANN', including
> the gTLD-MoU and the IFWP.
>
> I have seen ICANN behave
> as an autocrat robber baron and
> deprive people of their
> property.
>
> Fortunately, we have made
> great strides since then.
>
> Accountability work,
> between 2003 (in the case of ccTLDs) up
> to last years' transition,
> as well as the fact that, both
> staff and Board now have
> personal trust, that was totally
> absent 15 years ago.
>
> But both organisations and
> personnnel can change.
>
> Institutional immunity
> leads to corruption. I do not want
> ICANN to become a FIFA, or
> IOC.
>
> And the recent .AFRICA
> case shows, the checks and balances
> of the US judicial system
> appear to work reasonably well (I
> personally remain uneasy
> about the covenant of immunity but
> I expect you have no
> problem with that).
>
> I trust this explains why
> some people - and I am one - may
> have a diametrically
> opposed view to yours when it comes to
> ICANN immunity.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=auyHgxBmAM7WyiHL_bP3LUU2HGtmpJs6UDz8t8hgsao&s=4T8UxvKRRjGx93vZCnzaETM13dJGuhA7-IdjUEJ9e8E&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lFzxyNZsqPq3dQCf2tQLLZwXRtWJNr01a16Lb6Zo_d8&s=tc55Ch_YirCnbB-jJFF7yg-QW5vCtxAjnJrB0kpNZp4&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=BDl9R7sJbdeSjifdzPQw6zLp1q3vtgMWmW-wXQ0hrV4&s=1f6YFREa-qF1g6KUMiKsAK989VC121BpFuiZt4VwS-o&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lS2-Q6qe5eurLgdspy7xa8Ttc9yDW34YHH_rzlVGV6Q&s=u2yi6j4492EwIGrbh-rOV9pW39jn177fYjGCIxw2khY&e=>
>
> --
>
> *Greg Shatan
> *C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lS2-Q6qe5eurLgdspy7xa8Ttc9yDW34YHH_rzlVGV6Q&s=u2yi6j4492EwIGrbh-rOV9pW39jn177fYjGCIxw2khY&e=>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170322/90f835d2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list