<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 23 August 2012 03:34 PM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.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"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Actually, Parminder you are
confusing different things.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think you are trying to be too clever to wriggle out of this, but
not very successfully, for which see below...<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">If there was someone willing and
able to challenge ICANN’s decision to award .xxx on
antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, and ICM Registry
were domiciled in Europe or India, respectively, then an
adverse decision would make European or Indian law
“applicable” to an ICANN decision.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it will make European/ Indian decision applicable *only* to ICM
registry and *not* to the ICANN. This is a straight forward and
obvious fact despite your very clever attempt to twist it to suit
you. <br>
<br>
Lets say, IT for Change and your Internet Governance Project ( IGP)
were doing a project together and the Indian government closes done
IT for Change for financial irregularities or whatever. IGP would
certainly be impacted by this Indian state's 'decision', but would
it not be rather big stretch to say Indian state decisions have
become 'applicable' to the IGP. <br>
<br>
US laws can today close down ICANN, force it to rescind any of its
agreement or change it. No European and Indian state can do anything
like this. This is what is meant by applicability of the laws of a
state, and Milton, you as a political theorist know this quite well.
But still if you have to resort to such flimsy arguments itself
shows how weak is the case of the status quo around the ICANN. You
are just proving my case :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">This is a problem, not with the US,
but with nation-states’ territorial jursidcition exerting
control over the internet.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in
this space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a
possible roadmap to it. <br>
<br>
BTW, I am reminded that unlike many others here, you are not for a
free float fully independent ICANN, and would like to have
appropriate political jurisdiction(s) apply to it, even if it just
with your version of what are the only legitimate functions of any
political jurisdiction - general procedural accountabilities,
competion law, FoE etc (which simply represents a specific political
ideology). And further, coming to the original issue, your choice
of this applicable political jurisdiction - more or less- is the US
state. . Is this not a good approximation your position? I will be
glad to be corrected though. <br>
<br>
How then are you speaking so completely against nation state based
jurisdiction. And correspondingly, what is your idea of the
applicable non-national jurisdiction, and what is its practical
shape?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Let me say that I think this
antitrust challenge has no merit and will not go anywhere.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is completely beside the point! Enough that it is 'possible'
that the challenge will be upheld whereby ICANN will have to annul
or change its decision. The world has to prepare its institutional
systems keeping such clearly probable eventuality in mind and not
react after the house has caught fire.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><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>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web
Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new
gTLDs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
Sala, <br>
<br>
You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's
decision.... I have no view on this particular decision of
ICANN to have a .xxx gtld. I am speaking about
applicability of the jurisdiction of US courts on all
ICANN decisions. And since US courts apply US law, it is
the applicability of US laws over all ICANN decisions,
which is also called 'oversight'. And I dont like anything
that calls itself a global system/ infrastructure to be
subject to laws that I do not have an opportunity to
participate in making. Simple democratic principle. No
legislation without representation.......<br>
<br>
The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is
quite beside the point.... But then if you have to pursue
that line, US has some of the worst IP laws, but still
when an IP issue vis a vis any ICANN decision comes up for
judicial review, it will still be the same US courts and
US law, and not Brazilian courts and law.....<br>
<br>
Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified....
parminder <br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM,
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">My personal views are if anything I
would say that the situation proves that the system works.
It means that decisions can be subject to scrutiny. Having
personally seen voluntary scrutiny take place within ICANN
and now seeing decisions being checked by the legal system
it shows that the organisation is answerable.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If anything, the US is probably the
strictest enforcer of antitrust laws in the world and
standards for corporate governance rate as among the
highest if not the highest. This should inspire
confidence that decisions can be checked. For ICANN it
means an internal self evaluation and ongoing assessment
to ensure that they perform their obligations to the
highest standards.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Organisations all over the world,
governments included continue to learn, grow and evolve
that is part of life. You pick up and learn and move on.
It does not mean that all your actions are going to be
flawless - show me one perfect organisation and I will
show you Utopia. Of course that does not mean that we do
not strive for excellent<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> standards.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM,
parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="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.</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#888888"><br>
<br>
<span class="hoenzb">parminder </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tuesday 21 August 2012
06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom: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></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom: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></p>
<p><span
style="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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka
Sala<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">P.O. Box 17862<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suva<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fiji<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twitter: @SalanietaT<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>