Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense legally. It is a good statement of purpose from your perspective, but it isn’t an operational statement. I was heartened to see you try and identify some other provisions of American law that you think ICANN should be immune from (most of which, by the way, do not involve the vagaries of US foreign policy and so contradict your purpose statement – but that is another issue). Let’s focus on that. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:09 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: RES: RES: ISSUE - unilateral jurisdiction of one country over ICANN On Monday 21 August 2017 04:29 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote: And what will ICANN then be immune from? Milton put it nicely, to quote, "... from the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy or other laws and policies that would circumvent ICANN’s accountability to its global MS community." _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction