<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">James<br>
<br>
Yes, ICANN has never claimed it is not subject to US law. It will
be ridiculous to do so for any responsible organisation based in
the US. Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when
caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list
- faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure
can be managed as per legal and executive authority of one
country. <br>
<br>
They first claim that ICANN is <i>de jure</i> independent, but
when pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is
<i>de facto</i>, independent of US laws. Now, this case, with an
outcome that could go either way, shows that it is not even <i>de
facto </i>independent. So, I was just asking those ICANN - US
relationship apologists, what have they to say now. But they seme
to ducking the question right now :). <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 21 August 2012 10:05 PM,
James S. Tyre wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">To my knowledge, ICANN has never
claimed (at least not in court) that it isn’t subject to
U.S. law or subject to review by U.S. courts. Certainly
it didn’t so here, its argument was a more nuanced
argument that U.S. antitrust law did not apply because
ICANN was engaging in a noncommercial activity (and
antitrust law does not apply to such activities). The
court disagreed with ICANN, but that’s different from a
broad claim that ICANN is exempt from U.S. law.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">But let’s use the Wayback Machine
to go back in time a decade. During the only time when
ICANN had elected Directors, one of the elected directors
was Karl Auerbach. Karl attempted to assert his absolute
rights as a Director of a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation (which is what ICANN is), but ICANN
rebuffed him at every step. So, eventually, Karl hired a
lawyer (me) to sue ICANN. The short story is that we
won. The relevant part to your post is that, even back
then, ICANN did not claim to be exempt from either U.S. or
California law. It’s defense of the lawsuit was based on
either grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">That ICANN is subject to U.S.
judicial review is neither new nor controversial.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">James S. Tyre<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Law Offices of James S. Tyre<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Culver City, CA 90230-4969<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com">jstyre@jstyre.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Policy Fellow, Electronic
Frontier Foundation<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org">https://www.eff.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Courier New" color="#1f497d"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Tahoma" color="black"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font
face="Tahoma" color="black" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b><span
style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>parminder<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Monday, August 20, 2012 11:45 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could
Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"
color="black" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font
face="Verdana" color="black" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news,
which exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of
independence from the US establishment.<br>
<br>
A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust
filing against ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld
. There is every likelihood that this decision of ICANN
may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN
do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable
that ICANN may be asked to put certain new provisions in
its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has been
sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response
in that case?<br>
<br>
Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to
similar review by US courts.<br>
<br>
ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed
status as a global organisation responsible only to the
global community, a claim which in any case had feet of
clay....<br>
<br>
And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above
ground have lost a major battle. I hope such defendants
on the list will respond to this news and the paradox it
poses.<br>
<br>
It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial
review (which of course it always was), and that its
decisions can be struck down by US courts, in which
case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its
decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity
about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. Well,
to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a
part of overall oversight.<br>
<br>
parminder </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"
color="black" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On
Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font
face="Times New Roman" color="black" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Salanieta<br>
<br>
Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting
your message with a new subject line, as the issue
would seem to deserve a separate thread from "new
gTLDs".<br>
<br>
Although the suit may have some implications for new
gTLDs, many of the allegations re antitrust issues re
the .xxx tld are based on the the particular history
of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM
Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it<br>
<br clear="all">
Robert <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font
face="Times New Roman" color="black" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at
6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com"
target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="black" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748"
target="_blank">http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748</a></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="black" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf"
target="_blank">http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf</a></span></font>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"
color="black" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"
color="black" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>