I short follow up to John's and Parminder's comments might be in order here. The first point is that the concept of "jurisdictional immunity" is always conditional since, unlike gravity or the speed of light, it is never an external given. There are multiple cases, at various levels, where, as John has pointed out, for whatever immunity: "those that giveth taketh away". The second point is immunity when all governments sign off is a multilateral treaty, which ICANN has wisely avoided, and from the formation to implementation is not without its problems. From my humble perspective our task at hand is to make ICANN the best practice, best case, realization of a social enterprise with a defined global mandate and remit. If, on that path ICANN's multstakeholder model encounters jurisdictional issues, it confronts them. There is no Emerald City jurisdiction, at the end of some yellow brick road, where ICANN can simply move to and experience global jurisdictional immunity. Sam Lanfranco, NOPC/csih