<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 September 2012 03:54 PM,
Riaz K Tayob wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:504F116B.1040400@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Parminder<br>
<br>
One can put is also differently... if it is just US law then it
does have de facto global application...</blockquote>
<br>
Of course, it is so. Riaz. The exceptions to general rule of
national territoriality of jurisdictions has mostly been to US's
benefit, given its global power. The principle target of my argument
was the proposition that other countries, especially developing
ones, could exercise their jurisdiction, to a significant extent,
over an US based institution. I simply see no basis for it.<br>
<br>
While on the issue, exceptions to international law have also mostly
been exercised by the US, again, because of its global power.<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:504F116B.1040400@gmail.com" type="cite"> now
if these proposals were to be take seriously... then how would
ICANN deal with the issues at the edges... porn in Saudi,
religious and political symbols in France, sacred issues in India,
etc... most international regimes are adept (if oft inept) at
dealing with diversity... do you even see a trace of this in ICANN
(although it is improving) or in the discourse... <br>
<br>
If difference cannot be dealt with operationally in a sound way
(i.e. deal with national sentiments, cultures, approaches,
alternative conceptions of the good life, etc) then it remains an
American imposition at least at the edges (where it does tend to
count more than other issues).... And it is not just national or
individualistic diversity one is talking about... it is also
policy diversity...<br>
<br>
riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/09/11 12:49 PM, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:504F092B.1090807@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
<big>Hi Lee, <br>
<br>
We live in a world that is made of territorially defined and
bound jurisdictions. Plus, there is some international law/
jurisdiction, albeit rather weak. There are no doubts
exceptions, whereby territorial jurisdictions are able to,
in some way or the other, reach out to other parts of the
world. (This </big></font><font face="Verdana"><big>mostly
</big></font><font face="Verdana"><big>happens on the
'powerful gets his way' principle, which is not to be
recommended.) Admittedly, there are more such instances in a
more connected world today then ever before, but they still
are 'exceptions'. The problem is that Milton and you are
trying to propose a governance system out of these
exceptions. No, it doesn't work that way. We cant work with
exceptions, we have to work with the main system. And the
main system is broken, for which please see below...</big><br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 10 September 2012 02:11
AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B135E25@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hey Parminder,<br>
<br>
If Milton's signing off, I'll sign on for one more attempt.<br>
<br>
<span style="background-color: white;">My aim is not to
encourage lawsuits against the hegemon's proxy ICANN - but
I feel them coming on anyway, with the .xxx one just the
tip of the hegemon's melting iceberg. (I'm enjoying this
70s flashback, don't get to use the word hegemon twice in
one sentence often these days : )<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<big>You do agree that there are many lawsuits coming ICANN's
way. Are we prepared for the outcomes of these lawsuits, which
are as inevitable. How long will the US executive be able to
put persuasive pressure on the US judiciary to not do anything
that may rock the boat. I dont think the US judiciary is that
subservient, and</big><big>, sooner or later,</big><big> it
will decisively apply the law. In an email on 27th Aug, </big><big>responding
to my specific poser,</big><big> David Conrad developed the
scenario that may follow an adverse decision in the .xxx case.
It culminated in the 'possibility' of .xxx having to be
removed from the root. Are we prepared for this eventuality.
Would the legitimacy of the system not collapse right away! (I
must mention here that David thought it wont).<br>
<br>
There could be other impacts of an adverse decision in the
.xxx case; ICANN may be directed by the court to review all
its policies and actions vis a vis whatever the court thinks
needs to be done to ensure consistent application of US's
anti-trust (or any other) law. ICANN will </big><big>immediately
</big><big>*have* to do so....<br>
</big><br>
<big>Are you/ we prepared for this very plausible scenario?
Responsible governance systems and its stakeholders do not
just sit around and wait for such a 'very probable'
eventuality to happen. What is our response/ preparation to
it? Does this not suggest that the present system of oversight
of, and jurisdiction application over, ICANN is broken? </big><br>
<big><br>
Your and Milton's response to it seems to be: it does not
matter if ICANN has to do all the above things on directions
of a US court; we will simply tell all the outraged/
protesting people from other countries that ICANN will also
respond *exactly" in the same manner if a court from their
countries (India, Ghana, Nepa, Indonesia, Brazil etc) were to
find faults with ICANN and propose remedial measures. <i>This
will be a patently untrue statement</i>. I can assure you
that no one will buy it. So, I advice you, please be ready for
some other response. </big><br>
<br>
<big>As for your and Milton's claim that if ICANN is subject to
international law, the corresponding immunities that it will
get from national jurisdiction could be a problem. Yes, it
could be a problem for USians, since at present ICANN is
subject to their national law. It is not a such problem to
people of other countries. On the other hand, it should be
obvious that any international law will be framed in a manner
that takes as much account of ICANN functions as possible.<big>
</big>Even if specific legal provisions do not exist in some
aspects, the international system is capable of delivering on
basis of principles of natural justice and other such forms of
jurisprudence. </big><br>
<br>
<big>Thanks, but we can do without US law getting imposed on the
whole world, which, to me, is what your and Milton's critique
of 'any' international system/ jurisdiction is all about.</big><br>
<br>
<big>parminder</big><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B135E25@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;"><span style="background-color:
white;"> <br>
So here's my free legal counsel for you: anyone anywhere
can play.<br>
<br>
Just as there was nothing to prevent Google or Yahoo, or
earlier Compuserve being taken to court in France or
Brazil, or Germany and Italy, and senior executives
threatened, tried, sentenced and/or subject to arrest if
they set foot in those countries - meaning even if they
had no staff there, but just passed through say the
Frankfurt airport, or stopped in Rome for a vacation -
so too could ICANN staff be subject to arrest; and ICANN
fined for example, should it not obey a court order in
Pakistan or India or anywhere else. </span><span
style="background-color: white;"><br>
<br>
We can review the specific circumstances in the various
cases I mentioned in passing if you want, but basically
the message is as the Internet and Internet services
pervades more deeply into all nation's daily lives, then
we should not be surprised when ICANN is, eventually,
challenged in various nation's courts. Most readily where
the organization has an establishment, meaning staff as in
Brussels and Australia. But even absent staff presence, I
could roll out 100 hypothetical scenarios on how ICANN
decisions could be challenged, in Pakistani or Indian, or
Brunei's, really any nation's legal system.</span><br>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br>
Just cuz it's a non-profit with a SoCal HQ does not mean
the organization is exempt from - any - legal sanction,
anywhere.<br>
<br>
Whether the balance of power over the administration of
changes to the root zone file, and/or the creation of this
or that new gtld, should be a matter of hundreds of
national jurisdictions, or handled through some form of
global collective action, is indeed the question. But
while I am practicing law without a license here, as the
saying goes in US domestic politics, at least I am making
reality based statements. Every single thing ICANN does
could be challenged in any national court. Winning a
case, and/or explaining to a judge or jury why a case was
brought, is of course never a sure thing. But the ability
in principle of Indian courts to rule on cases in which
Indian citizens, businesses, and/or government agencies
claim injury, is not in any way impaired by the location
of ICANN's HQ.<br>
<br>
ICANN, on the other hand, if established under
international public or private law, could indeed gain
various immunities, which its actions do not now enjoy.
Milton's 100% right to say careful what we wish for here,
since moving to a treaty or international convention as
the source of ICANN's legal status, could just as easily
make ICANN less responsive as more responsive to national
jurisdictions, and individuals. ANY national jurisdiction.
But that is a possibility and not a certainty, as it would
depend on the specifics agreed to by nations signing onto
that hypothetical treaty.<br>
<br>
If you don't believe me, just ask any practicing
international (private) lawyer. I'm guessing her answer
would be another question: how deep are your pockets? : )
But anyone with enough money to make the challenge to for
example - any - gtld string, can follow ICANN procedures,
or they can turn to their own national courts. Although
those courts might find it annoying if they are dragged
into the middle of an arcane dispute if remedies from
within the ICANN system were not exhausted first.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, like I said some time back, this whole
dialogue has gotten - more or less nowhere - since
apparently it is more fun to flash back to the 80s or
hegemonic 70s than try to make sense of what should be
done next, to align ICANN and other elements of Internet
governance more closely with all of the global communities
that are affected by those decisions.<br>
<br>
Since there has been no new or original suggestions made,
then we do seem to be stuck in a time warp. A domestic US
non-profit corporation, albeit one that strives mightily
to - should I say sucker, or invite? : ) - people from
around the world to do the heavy volunteer lifting to keep
the global net up and operating, is the main game in the
global Internet governance village, still.<br>
<br>
Seeing as apparently noone has a better idea, or has even
concrete suggestions on how to get from here to there,
there being a more globally equitable future, then yeah we
are stuck. Bummer. <br>
<br>
Or maybe, I repeat again, this dialogue, while at times
fun, really suggests it is time to get serious about
Norbert's enhanced cooperation task force idea to figure a
way forward. Since none of us are managing to do any
better, absent that. imho. If we are counting on the ITU
to do so in December....well I got a few virtual bridges
for sale that are more solid. Better to give the
(IGF-responsive) task force idea a shot, I suggest.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
</span>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-size: 16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF808551"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
on behalf of parminder [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 09, 2012 2:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 06 September
2012 10:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New \;color\:\#1F497D"}
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
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollba
r-base-
co
lor:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;s
crollba
r-
arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Parminder, your
responses are degenerating beyond the point
where it is worth responding.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are just getting desperate, Milton...<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">You seem to be more
interested in playing rhetorical games than in
reaching agreement or improving understanding. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Meaning, rather than simply agreeing with your most
untenable proposition about parity of application of
jurisdiction over ICANN between US and all other 191
states. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I will point out the
reasons I say these things and then suspend any
further communication with you on these issues</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="">[Milton
L Mueller] Any law from ANY jurisdiction
constraining or dictating ICANN’s action
would have global effect, insofar as the
global Internet relies on ICANN to
administer the DNS.</span></i></b></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Milton, In face of clear facts to the contrary,
you continue to claim that EU's, India's,
Ghana's, all of 192 government's, jurisdictions
have similar implication and impact on ICANN. I
dont think I need to labour to disprove this
patently absurd proposition. <span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Read my sentence,
which is a conditional statement and says that
if "any law from any jurisdiction" </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">could "constrain or
dictate ICANN's action" it would have global
effect. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Your above statement - 'If' any law from any
jurisdiction 'could' constrain or dictate ICANN's
action, it would have global effect - says nothing at
all other that that 'ICANN's actions have global
effect', something which no one disputes. What other
meaning does this sentence carry?<br>
<br>
What is under disputation is - laws from '<b><i>which</i></b>'
jurisdiction can constraint or dictate ICANN's '<i><b>global</b></i>'
actions? You say that laws from all 192 country
jurisdictions have the 'same' (or at least similar)
effect as from US's jurisdiction of 'constraining or
dictating ICANN's <i><b>global</b></i> action'. This is
what I call as a <i><b>patently absurd proposition. </b></i><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But just to continue with the
present discussion on the .xxx case, even if the
ICM registry was * not* US based, the porn
industry majors could/ would have brought the
case against ICANN for instituting .xxx (since
the registry would of course have serviced
domain name demands from the US among others).
ICANN would still be forced to defend itself in
the case, and if it lost the case to annul or
modify .xxx agreement. <span style="color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I have asked you two
questions related to this that you have
steadfastly ducked: </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">1) Do you think
ICANN should be immune from antitrust? Yes or
no.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Of course ICANN should be subject to all kinds of public
interest laws, as every entity should be - anti-trust,
but also others, like those aimed at preserving and
deepening public domain..... ( thus being prevented from
giving off generic names like school, kid, beauty, cloud
etc as private tlds).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">2) What stops such a
case from being brought in the EU? ICANN has
offices in Brussels, and its "service" or
operations could be considered global, thus in
the EU. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
First of all, you are cleverly skipping examples of
India, Ghana and Bangladesh that I used, and only
employing EU's case becuase ICANN has an office there...
Your argument can be challenged simply on this ground,
what about the other countries, especially the
developing ones where ICANN chooses not to have an
office. (Equity, Milton, equity, dont lose sight of this
simple democratic value!)<br>
<br>
On the other hand, even if ICANN has a Brussels office,
this fact does not put EU's jurisdiction over ICANN
anywhere close to a similar level to US's. Apart from
the fact that, if the push comes to shove, ICANN can
simply close or shift Brussels office, offshore offices
have often claimed lack of control over and
accountability for parent bodies decisions vis a vis the
jurisdictions in which they are located. (This is well
known, but if you want examples, I can give them.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It does not take a political
scientist to understand that the same is not
true vis a vis the jurisdiction of any other of
192 countries. <span style="color: rgb(31, 73,
125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">You have not made
any argument to explain why this is true. You
have merely asserted it. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, I did make a clear argument using the scenario of an
.xxx related case being brought in a Bangladesh court.
Pl see my last email to which you respond. But you
completely ignored that argument. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The US antitrust
case is in fact no different from an antitrust
case that might be brought in the EU, </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Completely wrong. For such a case brought in the EU,
even if .xxx registry was based in EU, (1) ICANN is not
obliged to defend the case (2) even if .xxx was to lose
the case, it is the registry that will have to renege
from the ICANN agreement, ICANN would have to do
'nothing'. However if the case is lost in the US, ICANN
itself has to undertake certain actions- and also keep
the judicial verdict in mind for future actions -
something which is incongruent with ICANN's global
governance status. That is the point. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, and I said this in the previous email
as well, which you seem to read selectively, even if
.xxx registry was not in the US, the porn industry could
still have brought the case to a US court against ICANN-
.xxx agreement, which is simply not possible vis a vis
any other country jurisdiction. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">If indeed ICANN were
engaged in restraint of the domain name trade
in conjunction with a EU-based</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">registry, the effect
would be exactly the same in both cases.
ICANN's status as a California Corp. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Wingdings; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span
style="">Ø<span style="font: 7pt "Times
New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">makes no difference
here. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
see above<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
20.25pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
snip<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">A</span>nd if
it indeed is already subject to 192
jurisdiction, even efficiency, since you dont
recognise issues of equity and democracy<span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:
0in; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 20.25pt;
text-indent: -0.25in;"> <span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Wingdings; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><span style="">Ø<span style="font:
7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">You lost me here. I
am the one in favor of democracy (e.g.,
election of ICANN board), you are the one in
favor of control by states. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am glad to have an elected board if you can assemble
the electorate in a manner that is equitous and then
ensure fair polling. Please tell me your proposal. As
for 'control by the states' I am happy to have any kind
of direct democracy not only in IG space but also all
other spaces of global governance (your view on this
please). And till we have it, instead of one country
dictating to the world, representational democracy will
do (while all efforts at national and international
level should be kept up to see that these purported
'representatives' are indeed democratically so).
Imperfect democracy and representativity cannot be taken
as an excuse for perpetuating hegemony and one-country
dictatorship. <br>
<br>
with regards<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium
1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;
-moz-border-top-colors: none;
-moz-border-right-colors: none;
-moz-border-bottom-colors: none;
-moz-border-left-colors: none; -moz-border-image:
none; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:
0in; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 20.25pt;
text-indent: -0.25in;"> <span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>