Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
I agree with Paul. The only thing to add concerns the fourth point. I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction. In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Greg/All My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity): First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Not applicable. Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative. Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable. Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations. Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions: First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? Thank you. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Excellent point David! I had neglected/forgotten that. Thanks for reminding us all 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 McAuley, David Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation I agree with Paul. The only thing to add concerns the fourth point. I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction. In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Greg/All My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity): First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Not applicable. Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative. Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable. Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations. Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions: First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? Thank you. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:(646)%20845-9428> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Seun/All This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well Paul Paul Rosenzweig <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 McAuley, David Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation I agree with Paul. The only thing to add concerns the fourth point. I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction. In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Greg/All My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity): First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Not applicable. Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative. Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable. Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations. Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions: First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? Thank you. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:(646)%20845-9428> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Dear Paul Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions… Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Seun/All This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation I agree with Paul. The only thing to add concerns the fourth point. I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction. In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Greg/All My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity): First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Not applicable. Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative. Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable. Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations. Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions: First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? Thank you. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. :) The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about P Paul Rosenzweig <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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Dear Paul Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions… Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Seun/All This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well Paul Paul Rosenzweig <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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation I agree with Paul. The only thing to add concerns the fourth point. I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction. In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Greg/All My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity): First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Not applicable. Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative. Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable. Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations. Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions: First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? Thank you. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:(646)%20845-9428> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Paul & Jorge, In a sense, you are both right. The questions I posed were not directly about immunity. Rather, they inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b) whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by Parminder. However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to the law of any jurisdiction). The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity. The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but doesn't require it. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. J The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Dear Paul
Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions…
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Seun/All
This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
I agree with Paul.
The only thing to add concerns the fourth point.
I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction.
In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Greg/All
My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity):
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
Not applicable.
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative.
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable.
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations.
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
All,
On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions:
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
Thank you.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
All, Any other thoughts on these questions? I may take off my rapporteur hat and offer a few of my own, but I prefer to wait until others have weighed in. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul & Jorge,
In a sense, you are both right.
The questions I posed were not directly about immunity. Rather, they inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b) whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by Parminder.
However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to the law of any jurisdiction).
The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity.
The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but doesn't require it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. J The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684
*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Dear Paul
Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions…
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Seun/All
This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
I agree with Paul.
The only thing to add concerns the fourth point.
I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction.
In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Greg/All
My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity):
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
Not applicable.
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative.
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable.
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations.
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
All,
On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions:
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
Thank you.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hello Greg, I am concerned at the various direction we are taking with this. You posed a way forward today and you got responses to that, now you are coming back to this one. Can we try to have a clear direction please and stop going around in circles with confusing questions. This is quite straightforward, we should give opportunity to hear any possible issues/concerns that may warrant considerations for possible immunity/waiver for ICANN in other for her to better serve the community without affecting existing accountability mechanisms. If ICANN is incorporated in another country, we would still be exploring the same question. I for one do not know what significant issue exist except the one relating to OFAC and I think Parminder mentioned a few other but please can you just allow the opportunity to hear those issues/concerns and let's address them to the extent feasible. I am not a lawyer but if there is anything I know about lawyers is that they can confuse a non-legal mind, because right now I have no idea of what we are trying to achieve any longer and I don't want to believe that is the goal ;-) Regards On 1 Mar 2017 11:55 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Any other thoughts on these questions? I may take off my rapporteur hat and offer a few of my own, but I prefer to wait until others have weighed in.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul & Jorge,
In a sense, you are both right.
The questions I posed were not directly about immunity. Rather, they inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b) whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by Parminder.
However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to the law of any jurisdiction).
The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity.
The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but doesn't require it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. J The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684
*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Dear Paul
Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions…
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Seun/All
This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
I agree with Paul.
The only thing to add concerns the fourth point.
I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction.
In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Greg/All
My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity):
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
Not applicable.
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative.
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable.
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations.
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
All,
On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions:
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
Thank you.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Seun, These were questions that I posed to the list a couple of weeks ago in order to see if there was any other support in the group for some statements made on the prior call. I had said on that call that I would put those questions on the list. These questions resurfaced today in a discussion between Paul and Jorge. Since they resurfaced, I just wanted to remind others that they had the opportunity to provide their own responses (and that I might provide my own). This is not incompatible with the work priorities discussed on the call today. I don't think this is incompatible with the question I posed to the list yesterday -- whether to (1) suspend any discussion of immunity or (2) address only the question of whether or not immunity should be a potential remedy that the group may recommend. Most importantly, none of this is incompatible with the group's general task of trying to identify relevant issues and concerns that may arise from ICANN's current jurisdictional set-up (separate from the question of possible remedies for any particular issue). However, we may decide that immunity is not a potential remedy that this group might recommend. If that's the case, then we would not be looking at "any possible issues/concerns that may warrant considerations for possible immunity/waiver for ICANN" That doesn't mean those issues/concerns can't be looked at. It only means that we would not recommend immunity as a possible remedy. In any event, looking at suggestions for issues to analyze is an ongoing task, whether those issues are suggested by the questionnaire or by participants in the group. We then need to take those suggestions and decide whether they are, in fact, issues for the group's consideration. Not every suggestion is going to result in an issue, but we should hear all suggestions brought up by the group. I hope this is clear. I certainly don't intend to confuse things! Separately, I will put out a work plan based on today's call and the work we have done to date. Maybe that will help, if this email hasn't helped.... Best regards, Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
I am concerned at the various direction we are taking with this. You posed a way forward today and you got responses to that, now you are coming back to this one. Can we try to have a clear direction please and stop going around in circles with confusing questions.
This is quite straightforward, we should give opportunity to hear any possible issues/concerns that may warrant considerations for possible immunity/waiver for ICANN in other for her to better serve the community without affecting existing accountability mechanisms. If ICANN is incorporated in another country, we would still be exploring the same question.
I for one do not know what significant issue exist except the one relating to OFAC and I think Parminder mentioned a few other but please can you just allow the opportunity to hear those issues/concerns and let's address them to the extent feasible.
I am not a lawyer but if there is anything I know about lawyers is that they can confuse a non-legal mind, because right now I have no idea of what we are trying to achieve any longer and I don't want to believe that is the goal ;-)
Regards
On 1 Mar 2017 11:55 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Any other thoughts on these questions? I may take off my rapporteur hat and offer a few of my own, but I prefer to wait until others have weighed in.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul & Jorge,
In a sense, you are both right.
The questions I posed were not directly about immunity. Rather, they inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b) whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by Parminder.
However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to the law of any jurisdiction).
The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity.
The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but doesn't require it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. J The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Dear Paul
Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions…
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Seun/All
This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
I agree with Paul.
The only thing to add concerns the fourth point.
I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction.
In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Greg/All
My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity):
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
Not applicable.
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative.
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable.
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations.
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
All,
On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions:
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
Thank you.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
However, we may decide that immunity is not a potential remedy that this group might recommend. If that's the case, then we would not be looking at "any possible issues/concerns that may warrant considerations for possible immunity/waiver for ICANN" That doesn't mean those issues/concerns can't be looked at. It only means that we would not recommend immunity as a possible remedy.
SO: I agree, especially if there are other ways to address whatever "valid issues" are identified. Discussing the issue is the stage we are yet to get to.
In any event, looking at suggestions for issues to analyze is an ongoing task, whether those issues are suggested by the questionnaire or by participants in the group. We then need to take those suggestions and decide whether they are, in fact, issues for the group's consideration. Not every suggestion is going to result in an issue, but we should hear all suggestions brought up by the group.
SO: I agree hence (unless you have been logging the suggestions/issues already made on various thread on this list), we should start collating the issues/suggestions and tackle them one after the other for clear record purposes.
I hope this is clear. I certainly don't intend to confuse things!
SO: Noted :-)
Separately, I will put out a work plan based on today's call and the work we have done to date. Maybe that will help, if this email hasn't helped....
SO: Thanks for that as it will help provide an idea of what has been done and what is still outstanding. Cheers!
Best regards,
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
I am concerned at the various direction we are taking with this. You posed a way forward today and you got responses to that, now you are coming back to this one. Can we try to have a clear direction please and stop going around in circles with confusing questions.
This is quite straightforward, we should give opportunity to hear any possible issues/concerns that may warrant considerations for possible immunity/waiver for ICANN in other for her to better serve the community without affecting existing accountability mechanisms. If ICANN is incorporated in another country, we would still be exploring the same question.
I for one do not know what significant issue exist except the one relating to OFAC and I think Parminder mentioned a few other but please can you just allow the opportunity to hear those issues/concerns and let's address them to the extent feasible.
I am not a lawyer but if there is anything I know about lawyers is that they can confuse a non-legal mind, because right now I have no idea of what we are trying to achieve any longer and I don't want to believe that is the goal ;-)
Regards
On 1 Mar 2017 11:55 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Any other thoughts on these questions? I may take off my rapporteur hat and offer a few of my own, but I prefer to wait until others have weighed in.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul & Jorge,
In a sense, you are both right.
The questions I posed were not directly about immunity. Rather, they inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b) whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by Parminder.
However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to the law of any jurisdiction).
The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity.
The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but doesn't require it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. J The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.adm in.ch] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Dear Paul
Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions…
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Seun/All
This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
I agree with Paul.
The only thing to add concerns the fourth point.
I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction.
In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
Greg/All
My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity):
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
Not applicable.
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative.
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable.
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations.
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation
All,
On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions:
*First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members?*
*Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law?*
*Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens?*
*Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction?*
*Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up?*
Thank you.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Hi Greg, Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in. I can't speak for other GAC colleagues, but from a Government of Canada perspective, it would not be appropriate to comment on the headquarter choice of a private sector actor. On a broader point, we certainly appreciate that the issue of jurisdiction is complex and multi-dimensional, which takes time to sift through. Unfortunately, we need to contend with the reality that our time and resources are limited. In the interest of ensuring that we have some consensus recommendations to put forward as we approach our targets, perhaps we can build on commonality and start with the low-hanging fruit. Are there concrete process improvements that could be considered to facilitate more effective ICANN engagement with stakeholders across jurisdictions (e.g., dealing with lawful access requests from other jurisdictions while still considering privacy and human rights)? We are not suggesting to take the more complex issues off the table, but rather to work up to them. Best, Andreea Government of Canada From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: March-01-17 11:55 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, Any other thoughts on these questions? I may take off my rapporteur hat and offer a few of my own, but I prefer to wait until others have weighed in. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul & Jorge, In a sense, you are both right. The questions I posed were not directly about immunity. Rather, they inquired about (a) whether any GAC members agreed with Parminder's characterization of the thinking of (at least some) GAC members and (b) whether any other participants agreed with the other points made by Parminder. However, the second and third questions, assuming the same answer would be true for any particular jurisdiction, lead inexorably to consideration of immunity (since the thinking is that it would be unfair to subject ICANN to the law of any jurisdiction). The fourth question has no direct relationship to immunity. The fifth question implies the possible consideration of immunity, but doesn't require it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Well .. that’s interesting, as I understood it as completely about immunity. ☺ The idea seemed to me, at least, to be about how ICANN should be immune from US law (or any law) that was not democratically agreed upon by all citizens of the world. Certainly, in the context of what Paraminder was talking about on the call to which this referred, it seemed that was what the questions were about P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>] Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:15 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Dear Paul Thanks for this info. I did not remember it in the context of the issue of immunities as it seems to me only weakly related to it, at most, but, again, perhaps I’m missing something… “immunities” is not even mentioned in the questions… Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 15:04 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Seun/All This is the questionnaire, my response, and David’s supplement. It is the first one I found in my files, but there were other answers as well Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:41 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation I agree with Paul. The only thing to add concerns the fourth point. I think Paul is correct on the fourth point, including where he say that so long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdiction. In addition, many countries have treaties/arrangements to enforce final judgments from other countries – these may be bilateral, regional, or even globally multilateral treaties. So it may turn out that ICANN cannot avoid a judgment even if it fled the realm, taking all of its interests, assets, and effects with it. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154<tel:(703)%20948-4154> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation Greg/All My responses are as follows (questions repeated for clarity): First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Not applicable. Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? I do not agree. To begin with there is no realistic possibility of any law being created that has been democratically arrived at by all citizens of the world. To say that only this law can apply to ICANN is to say that no law at all can apply to ICANN. I am not aware of any body of law that would satisfy this criteria, as almost all international law is adopted by nations, not by the citizens of the world, and it is not the case that all of the nations participating in the creation of an international body of law are themselves democratically representative. Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? I do not agree. US law can and will apply to any institution that is subject to it. That include people who are US citizens; companies that do business in the US and anyone who is present in the US. The same of course is true of every nation in the world – the all assert jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and companies/individuals with substantial interests that effect their country. If instead of “cannot” (a descriptive) you mean “should not” (a normative) I disagree as well. First, of course, there is no real use in establishing a norm that cannot practically be realized. Second, and more importantly, subjecting ICANN to US law (and also to the laws of other States) is precisely how we achieve accountability. In the absence of applicable law, ICANN becomes unaccountable. Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? I do not agree. This is simply wrong as a matter of law in the US, in Germany, and in Britain, which are the three countries whose law I am familiar with. I imagine it is also wrong for many (most?) other nations. So long as ICANN has any interests/assets/effects in a country, it cannot effectively avoid that jurisdication. I would also note that the underlying suggestion (that ICANN seek to avoid valid judgements rendered by courts in a jurisdiction) is fundamentally lawless and that ICANN should not be in a position of suggesting that it can avoid the rule of law by artificial means of closing its operations. Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. [It is also wrong, but you insisted on assuming the premise.] More to the point, the status of ICANN as a US non profit is an essential part of the accountability mechanisms that we just spend many thousands of hours creating. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:12 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questions based on Parminder's statements in the last meeting about GAC participation All, On our last call there were some remarks by Parminder about the position of GAC members regarding ICANN. It was not clear to me that GAC members actually held the beliefs ascribed to them. We were not able to determine this on the call, one way or the other. I've now excerpted the relevant sections of the transcript and confirmed them against the audio. These sections are attached. In addition to the question about the GAC, these statements raise a few other questions: First, for any GAC members, is it your position that you agree with Parminder's statements regarding GAC members? Second, for all participants, do you agree that only a law that has been democratically arrived at by all the citizens of the world can be applied to ICANN? Are you aware of any such body of law? Third, for all participants, do you agree that US law cannot be applied to ICANN because it has only been democratically arrived at by US citizens? Fourth, for all participants, do you agree that if ICANN is sued in a jurisdiction where it has an office, other than its jurisdiction of incorporation and loses, that ICANN can avoid complying with the judgment by closing its office in that jurisdiction? Fifth, assuming for the sake of discussion that "ICANN primarily is a body with a global government function and only secondarily, an US nonprofit," what is the relevance, if any, to our primary tasks of enhancing ICANN's accountability and determining whether ICANN's accountability is negatively affected by its current jurisdictional set-up? Thank you. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (6)
-
Brambilla, Andreea (IC) -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
McAuley, David -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji