On Feb 25, 2017 3:10 PM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen

Although the haste of the pre-transition days has gone, I think we should still be proportionate in spending the corporations legal budget.

It is entirely a waste of money, in my opinion, to instruct lawyers to inform on a proposition which is objected to.

It is irrelevant WHETHER ICANN may waive immunity.

ICANN *SHOULD NOT HAVE* immunity.

On 25/02/17 13:51, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

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@gmail.com
<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:

On Feb 25, 2017 5:21 AM, "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net
<mailto:parminder@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@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
*Seun Ojedeji
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 1:43 PM
*To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
*Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@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@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@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 <tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:(646)%20845-9428>
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>____

__ __

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@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@channelisles.net
<mailto:nigel@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@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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@itforchange.net
<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>
<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net
<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>>;
ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@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@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>

<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>>

[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>

<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>>]
*On Behalf Of
*parminder
*Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017
8:46 AM
*To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@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@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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@itforchange.net
<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>
<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net
<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 12:54 AM
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>>;
ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@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@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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/
<
...