<HTML><BODY>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">
<PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>Here are a few comments on the legal aspects. I hope
this will help in clarifying some terminological confusion. <?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN
lang=EN-US>FROMKIN: I was attempting to distinguish from entities like the
UN which have a treaty behind them. If there is a treaty, which (as
you note) there is in <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>the case
of the R.C., then that leads neatly and routinely to a HQ agreement if the
treaty contemplates a secretariat. Maybe I've become overly
legalistic, but this seems to me to be a fundamental difference from the
(current) ICANN case....<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>JOVAN: In the case of
the Red Cross, status is not regulated by treaty. It is regulated by the
Swiss Civil Law and Headquarters Agreement signed between <?xml:namespace
prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Switzerland</st1:country-region>
</st1:place> and the Red Cross. The treaty aspect (Geneva Convention) does
not regulate the status of the Red Cross. It only provides the policy
context (implementation of the Geneva Convention). In that sense, the Red
Cross is <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">sui generis</I>. It does not
follow the usual pattern, which you correctly indicated –establishing the
organisation via an international treaty + signing a headquarters agreement
in order to regulate relations between the organisation and the host
country. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p>
</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN
lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>BILL: What
precisely is ICANN's status under international law? <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
</PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN
lang=EN-US>JOVAN: ICANN is not an international legal entity. It does not
have any legal capacity under international public law. The only subjects of
international public law are nation states and, to some extent,
international organisations. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN>
</PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>BILL: Irrespective of what's stated in its
bylaws, presumably it has some obligations under international private law
with respect to contracts etc. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>JOVAN: International
private law is a frequently used misnomer. One possible reason why it was
widely adopted is that international private law sounds “sexier” than more
correct and precise titles, such as “conflict of laws” (used in the
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region>
</st1:place>) “Konfliktrecht,” or “droit intersystematique”. It sounds more
impressive to be a professor of international private law than of “conflict
of laws.” International private law is not “international.” The
“international” element is related to its application, used to identify
applicable jurisdiction and law in legal cases with foreign elements. This
is stipulated in national legislation not in international treaties (like
international PUBLIC law). If Adam Peake, representing the Internet
Governance Caucus (not a legal entity), concludes an agreement with a
restaurant regarding the hosting of an IG Caucus Gala Dinner, in order to
celebrate the success of civil society in IG negotiations, with an expensive
menu, and nobody attends the dinner without prior cancellation, the owner of
the restaurant could start a legal case for compensation. Such a legal case
would involve a foreign element (the nationality of Adam Peake). The court
in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">
France</st1:country-region></st1:place> would have to decide which
jurisdiction should apply (Japanese or French) and after that which
substantive law should apply. The rules about how the French court should
decide about applicable jurisdiction and relevant law are part of French
national legislation. They are “international” private law, which could also
be applied to other private law cases (property relations, marriage, other
transactions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p>
</o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>In the case of ICANN, if there is a
court case between ICANN and a foreign entity (e.g. national domain name
operators), the court where the legal case is initiated has to decide about
its jurisdiction and applicable law. If this is a court in <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">California</st1:State></st1:place>, it will
decide according to the Californian conflict of laws (international private
law). The court has to decide: a) if it can establish jurisdiction; b) if it
can establish jurisdiction which law should be applied (Californian or
foreign). <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p>
</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN
lang=EN-US>BILL: What about international public law as instanciated in
ICT-related treaties under, inter alia, ITU/WTO/WIPO/COE, or the
international bill of human rights for that matter? Could the USG as
signatory to these at least nominally be obliged to act to bring ICANN into
compliance with, say, a ruling of the WTO's dispute settlement system, a
petition filed with the European Court of Human Rights, etc? <o:p>
</o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE>
<SPAN lang=EN-US>JOVAN: Generally speaking, the <st1:place w:st="on">
<st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place> has been
using a “monist” approach to international law. The international
obligations adopted by the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region
w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place> are directly applicable to
the internal legal system. This is one of the reasons why the <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>
is sometimes reluctant to sign international agreements. For other
countries, which belong to the “dualist” school, the link between
international and national law is less direct (there is the possibility to
prolong and evade internationally accepted obligations). Specifically, it
depends on each regime – e.g. the WTO dispute settlement system accepts only
specific claims. The European Court of Human Rights provides access to
individuals, but it is restricted to the signatories of the European Human
Rights Convention. This convention is regional and the <st1:place w:st="on">
<st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place> is not a
party to it. An important caveat: there are SOME Council of Europe
Conventions which are accessible to any nation state (including those
outside <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>) – such as the Cybercrime
Convention. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p>
</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN
lang=EN-US>BILL: This language went into our statement with not much
discussion and I'll bet I'm not the only person here who's not entirely
clear how these things work in relation to an org with ICANN's particular
legal/tax status.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US> <o:p>
</o:p></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN lang=EN-US>JOVAN: I agree, it requires more
careful consideration. The civil society has been building its credibility
on providing authoritative and knowledgeable input into the debate. We have
to be careful to keep this line during the next phase when we enter a tricky
terrain of legal considerations – especially various interplays between
national and international legal systems.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></PRE>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;
mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial"> As ever, Jovan</SPAN><o:p></o:p></DIV></DIV>
</BODY></HTML>