<p dir="ltr">Very true Seth...<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 Jun 2015 17:11, "Seth Johnson" <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My issue is that I don't think people really know what they're doing.<br>
I tend to be inclined to get something international in place, except<br>
I just don't see any discussion that really gets what the implications<br>
are. The techies all think it's just a matter of keeping the<br>
contracts as much the same as possible, and they don't get that the<br>
context changes everything. And the civil society folks have a<br>
different kind of short-sightedness (I think the JNC folks are trying<br>
to push to more substantive discussion, but they miss some basics in<br>
their eagerness to establish a shortsighted view of legitimacy. And<br>
the other camp, which tends to talk MS-ism and resist governmental<br>
encroachment per se, also doesn't see that they're not living in<br>
reality).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Without getting very deep into it yet, I think you emphasize the<br>
> question of control, whereas I would talk about recourse, in a more<br>
> "transferable" way. What we don't want to do is put things into an<br>
> international arena where we (all) the people(s) have much less<br>
> recourse. Talking about degrees of positive control by the US per se<br>
> and whether that matters doesn't seem like a way to really sort the<br>
> questions out. It's more a problem of people eager to "go there"<br>
> understanding that what's wrong there isn't actually about the US,<br>
> even though it is in fact the case that the US is really leading the<br>
> charge in exploiting what's wrong there to the expense of all the<br>
> people(s).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I see from that last paper that it's a "public-private partnership?"<br>
>> Uh-oh. :-) And a weird one. I'll try to think about what it does in<br>
>> light of recourse to rights.<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of<br>
>> Law <<a href="mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu">froomkin@law.miami.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I am afraid that the door for any recourse via NITA is basically shut at<br>
>>> present. I have three relevant articles that trace the developments.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the<br>
>>> Constitution, 50 DUKE L.J. 17 (2000),<br>
>>> <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=252523" target="_blank">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=252523</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Form and Substance in Cyberspace, 6 J. SMALL & EMERGING BUS. L. 93 (2002),<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/articles/formandsubstance.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/articles/formandsubstance.pdf</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Almost Free: An Analysis of ICANN’s ‘Affirmation of Commitments’, 9 J.<br>
>>> Telecom. & High Tech. Law 187 (2011), <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744086" target="_blank">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744086</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> If you are in a rush, just read the last one.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Seth Johnson wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of<br>
>>>> Law <<a href="mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu">froomkin@law.miami.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Just to head off a possible and no doubt unintentional misunderstanding:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Non-US persons have recourse to US courts for many things, including<br>
>>>>> contractual rights. Non-US persons located outside the US do not, in the<br>
>>>>> main, have the right to make constitutional claims or defenses against<br>
>>>>> the<br>
>>>>> US government. But since ICANN, or New New Co., is not part of the US<br>
>>>>> government, this is not relevant.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If a corporation is located in a US state, then it can be sued there by<br>
>>>>> **anyone*** from ***anywhere*** so long as they are in fact alleging<br>
>>>>> facts<br>
>>>>> showing they were wronged by it. In other words, the issue is what<br>
>>>>> (mainly<br>
>>>>> private law) rights one might have to assert, not whether the court will<br>
>>>>> hear you due to your citizenship or domicile or even (if represented by<br>
>>>>> counsel) location.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Right. I am speaking specifically about fundamental rights claims<br>
>>>> against the government, which is the key thing I emphasize we need to<br>
>>>> understand. I am also not talking about the issues related to the<br>
>>>> corporate form. I believe I am correct that there would be a basis<br>
>>>> for recourse against the US government via the NTIA connection, though<br>
>>>> I'm unsure about whether that basis applies to ICANN in particular in<br>
>>>> the present relationship. Removing that connection in the IANA<br>
>>>> functions would remove even that basis for a fundamental rights claim<br>
>>>> as it's then private. I'm not too sure how strong the basis for the<br>
>>>> claim via NTIA would be, but if it's a question of fundamental rights<br>
>>>> it would be heightened scrutiny inasmuch as the activities in question<br>
>>>> can be attributed to the US government. And the US doesn't muck<br>
>>>> around with the IANA or any other Internet-related stewardship area,<br>
>>>> as it's all so close to areas of free speech, association, press (and<br>
>>>> searches and seizures) (which is central to my message here) --<br>
>>>> except through the international arena, where there are ways to get in<br>
>>>> there (and which is really a big part of what's going on with the<br>
>>>> whole transition, whether IANA or "Internet governance" in general).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> My emphasis in this thread is not on the corporate form, or private<br>
>>>> issues in general. You and I are talking about different angles, but<br>
>>>> I am also concerned about the corporate angle; I just emphasize that<br>
>>>> on a kind of first principles basis (and things that I think need to<br>
>>>> be understood in general as first principles), the way to examine a<br>
>>>> transition to the international arena should be looked at in this<br>
>>>> light first.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> One can certainly go to court in the US on all sorts of diversity<br>
>>>> jurisdiction bases -- other than fundamental rights claims, which as<br>
>>>> you say have to be of a citizen against their government.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I have plenty to say about the corporate form, but it's a very<br>
>>>> different story. That tends to be what people talk about first.<br>
>>>> People want to talk that way rather than sound like they're<br>
>>>> questioning "good governance" in this area (which I'm not; I might<br>
>>>> sound anti-government or like a latter-day radical libertarian here,<br>
>>>> but I'm really just describing the relationship between people and<br>
>>>> their fundamental rights and the government). However, I think we get<br>
>>>> someplace clearer, sooner, in terms of properly characterizing the<br>
>>>> international arena, with regard to fundamental rights.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I really want to go way back on the corporate form and the whole US<br>
>>>> legacy of federal common law and forum shopping. But we really messed<br>
>>>> that domain up royally, from way back. Then again, we didn't know<br>
>>>> enough to consider it as an issue for the constitutional moment, which<br>
>>>> I think it really should have been if we'd known enough back then.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Seth<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Seth Johnson wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Simple and maybe trivial question, again (since my previous one about<br>
>>>>>>> delegation hasn't found a taker.)<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Scenario 1*: I am a citizen of Togo, quite a small country sitting on<br>
>>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>>> belly of Africa to the west (you may check our macro economic<br>
>>>>>>> indicators<br>
>>>>>>> in<br>
>>>>>>> the CIA Facebook or from the World Bank online sources.) I am a domain<br>
>>>>>>> name<br>
>>>>>>> registrant. In year 2018 ICANN makes a decision, later upheld by the<br>
>>>>>>> conflict resolution mechanism in place, but which I think violates my<br>
>>>>>>> fundamental rights as I understand them by any international standards.<br>
>>>>>>> I<br>
>>>>>>> am<br>
>>>>>>> even pretty convinced that I might win the case in a US court based on<br>
>>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>>> documentation available /jurisprudence in that country. Problem is, I<br>
>>>>>>> have<br>
>>>>>>> no access to the institutional resources that would allow me to use the<br>
>>>>>>> US<br>
>>>>>>> judicial system as a plaintiff, much less the financial resources it<br>
>>>>>>> would<br>
>>>>>>> take to get a lawyer to represent my interests.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Is that -- the need for everybody to be equal before the law, in<br>
>>>>>>> practice,<br>
>>>>>>> and have their rights equally secured, -- in your view, a problem<br>
>>>>>>> worthy<br>
>>>>>>> of<br>
>>>>>>> our attention? If so how can we address it.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It is. But no, you would not have recourse to US courts. The problem<br>
>>>>>> for the international arena is that nobody has that "trump card"<br>
>>>>>> recourse that keeps governments in check *other than* those who have a<br>
>>>>>> claim that their own government is doing or allowing things to happen<br>
>>>>>> that violate their own fundamental rights as a citizen. The kind of<br>
>>>>>> rights you get internationally are really almost what we call<br>
>>>>>> statutory rights -- the problem being that the "legislature" can<br>
>>>>>> always rewrite those kinds of rights. Or, since in fact going and<br>
>>>>>> revising a treaty provision regarding rights poses some political<br>
>>>>>> difficulty, what you'll see more often is that the rights expressed in<br>
>>>>>> treaties have no more weight against things like "national interests"<br>
>>>>>> or "national security" or the "war on" x, y, and z -- than a<br>
>>>>>> "balancing standard." Governments can well do whatever they say is<br>
>>>>>> necessary (like vacuum up all communications for surveillance, or for,<br>
>>>>>> hey, regular spying) for their national interests and they essentially<br>
>>>>>> just "bear in mind" whatever rights are expressed in treaties. And no<br>
>>>>>> judge in an ostensible international tribunal can really simply cancel<br>
>>>>>> a treaty the way they can an unconstitutional law in a national<br>
>>>>>> context (without a clear founding act prior to the government, where<br>
>>>>>> the people(s) claim their priority and authorize government(s) to<br>
>>>>>> proceed only under certain limits). Treaties are agreements among<br>
>>>>>> governments, so what the governments "meant" is what you have to<br>
>>>>>> deliberate over in interpreting the treaties -- not over whether the<br>
>>>>>> people have rights regardless of the governments' intention in the<br>
>>>>>> treaty. A judge would at best weigh treaty elements and try to<br>
>>>>>> articulate how to settle all parts without saying any part is<br>
>>>>>> "unconstitutional." The problem is how to get the closest you can to<br>
>>>>>> that kind of a "trump card" standing for fundamental rights.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> An ostensible "constitution" among governments (like the ITU's) has<br>
>>>>>> the same problem. In general, the way the real claim of priority of<br>
>>>>>> the people and their rights happens is when the people self-evidently<br>
>>>>>> act to fill in the gap when a government is rendered illegitimate (or<br>
>>>>>> overthrown): acting independent of the pre-established government to<br>
>>>>>> select delegates to their own constitutional convention, draft a<br>
>>>>>> constitution, and then ratify it -- they thereby set a definitive<br>
>>>>>> historical register of the people setting limits that the government<br>
>>>>>> must thenceforth operate within to be legitimate. This is called the<br>
>>>>>> "constituent power." Historians point at Massachusetts as the first<br>
>>>>>> US colony/state to exercise the consttuent power that way -- when the<br>
>>>>>> towns rejected the state constitution the state legislature had<br>
>>>>>> written for them and insisted on having their own constitutional<br>
>>>>>> process. It was done by similar principles for the US federal<br>
>>>>>> constitution. That's how you get a fundamental right "trump card."<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> If you have that, and it's exercised a few times well or for a while,<br>
>>>>>> then you have a situation where goverments are in check -- they don't<br>
>>>>>> overreach too obviously, or they test the boundaries but they get<br>
>>>>>> trumped by a judiciary that's rooted that way.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> You posed the question of equal rights before the law, in the<br>
>>>>>> international context. I certainly do not advocate a global<br>
>>>>>> revolution where all the people(s) seize a moment to stop their<br>
>>>>>> governments and tell them how they may all proceed.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> What I have tended to suggest is approaches that can be interim<br>
>>>>>> measures that tend towards the principles that we want to have in<br>
>>>>>> play, but which we can't yet quite have in play.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> One approach that seems like a way towards that kind of conception<br>
>>>>>> might be: Imagine a bicameral "House of Rights" or more narrowly an<br>
>>>>>> "International Internet Communications Rights Forum." It doesn't need<br>
>>>>>> to say "Rights," though that's the point, so maybe call it an<br>
>>>>>> "Internet Stewards House." This is modeled like a legislature, with a<br>
>>>>>> house to represent countries equally, and another house to represent<br>
>>>>>> populations proportionally -- except it's not empowered to write law<br>
>>>>>> (or treaties), but rather to play the role of voting to *veto* acts of<br>
>>>>>> other (or some one or few other) intergovernmental bodies that<br>
>>>>>> actually do start enacting binding "legislation." You might be able<br>
>>>>>> to get freedom-loving countries to endorse constructing something like<br>
>>>>>> that, and while it's not as solid as court rulings that keep all<br>
>>>>>> lawlike activities in check more definitively, it would be a solid<br>
>>>>>> register of the priority of rights.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> There are a lot of holes in that, but I think it conveys something of<br>
>>>>>> the kind of concerns and how they might be approached that we should<br>
>>>>>> really have in mind rather than blindly handing things off to the<br>
>>>>>> international arena (which is really *always* "intergovernmental" --<br>
>>>>>> governments are the entities that act there).<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> So, that's a sort of answer, stab at describing things properly and<br>
>>>>>> with some sort of practical conception. I don't press specific<br>
>>>>>> solutions though, just describe notions that I think can give people a<br>
>>>>>> better understanding of the real nature of the difficulties and<br>
>>>>>> problems involved.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Ponder that; you'll think of plenty of problems with it. But the<br>
>>>>>> important thing is this is a far more real characterization of the<br>
>>>>>> situation. And I describe an idea like this solely to set a proper<br>
>>>>>> stage for talking about things with a better sense of what's going on.<br>
>>>>>> Take it as a brainstorm. But also take it as a reality check and a<br>
>>>>>> call and challenge to try to define and understand the situation<br>
>>>>>> properly and well.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> (The above line of exposition talks mostly about governmental-related<br>
>>>>>> issues. The issues brought by the corporate form are a whole other<br>
>>>>>> area that also needs fuller appreciation. And really, we most want<br>
>>>>>> not to be so governmental [even those of us stressing the validity of<br>
>>>>>> the role of government]; we want to just build our Internet and let<br>
>>>>>> that be mostly a discussion of how to solve problems in a technical<br>
>>>>>> way and one where our rights aren't on the line.)<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> See what you think of that.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Seth<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Thanks<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> (*) I only have one scenario for now but I'm numbering #1 just in case<br>
>>>>>>> others come up later in the discussion.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2015 3:57 PM, "Seth Johnson" <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> I believe the most important focus is on the question of how to<br>
>>>>>>>> install effective fundamental liberties limits in the context of an<br>
>>>>>>>> international political forum. That's how you can hope to maintain<br>
>>>>>>>> the type of stewardship context we want associated with a medium of<br>
>>>>>>>> communication. The presence of recourse of that sort -- related to<br>
>>>>>>>> being based in a national context -- is one of the main reasons why<br>
>>>>>>>> ICANN has not gone further off the rails. Same as for government in<br>
>>>>>>>> general in such a national context: we don't get the government<br>
>>>>>>>> meddling specifically because the relationship to the national context<br>
>>>>>>>> (via the bare presence of NTIA) means the people (at least of the US)<br>
>>>>>>>> have recourse against it if it does.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that one of the chief reasons why Obama (and his<br>
>>>>>>>> predecessor) have gone off the rails with surveillance and other<br>
>>>>>>>> fundamental rights violations is because they have the notion that the<br>
>>>>>>>> international arena provides means to act that way without the<br>
>>>>>>>> recourse we have against it domestically. There's still the problem<br>
>>>>>>>> of laundering the surveillance by having private corporations (whether<br>
>>>>>>>> telco or app) do it on the government's behalf. But we see an effort<br>
>>>>>>>> at long last to try to "legitimize" what they're doing that way at<br>
>>>>>>>> least (more apparent effort to not violate citizens in the domestic<br>
>>>>>>>> sphere), because we finally got standing in the courts, and<br>
>>>>>>>> documentation that was taken seriously via Snowden. Still just<br>
>>>>>>>> domestic, so that doesn't answer general concerns, but this should<br>
>>>>>>>> highlight the nature of the problem. You don't actually have<br>
>>>>>>>> fundamental rights in the international arena, no matter how many<br>
>>>>>>>> human rights treaties you pass. That's not what secures rights<br>
>>>>>>>> against acts of governments.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Note that this is stuff the UN has been utterly clueless about for<br>
>>>>>>>> years and years and years, along with many followers-on. And I think<br>
>>>>>>>> in general the parties who have been acting in the international arena<br>
>>>>>>>> like it that way. We, the people(s), are really the ones to bring it<br>
>>>>>>>> into the discourse in a real way, now that we are here in proceedings<br>
>>>>>>>> that deign to appear to engage us substantively in international<br>
>>>>>>>> policy.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Seth<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of<br>
>>>>>>>> Law <<a href="mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu">froomkin@law.miami.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Parminder is emphasizing a true point. An organization which<br>
>>>>>>>>>> represents<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> interests of many nations, though located in one nation (as it must<br>
>>>>>>>>>> be)<br>
>>>>>>>>>> must<br>
>>>>>>>>>> not be subjected to laws that ought to be (and are) for national<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> It is, I think, possible to act as a trustee of international<br>
>>>>>>>>> interests<br>
>>>>>>>>> while still having accountability rooted in national law. It may not<br>
>>>>>>>>> be<br>
>>>>>>>>> possible to accommodate the desires of governments to, in effect,<br>
>>>>>>>>> serve<br>
>>>>>>>>> directly on the governing body given the view of e.g. the Brazilian<br>
>>>>>>>>> government that this is unacceptable subordination to another state,<br>
>>>>>>>>> but<br>
>>>>>>>>> some may see that as a feature rather than a bug.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> organizations. This should be the definition of international<br>
>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction<br>
>>>>>>>>>> here. If the host nation's laws don't actually accommodate the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> multinational<br>
>>>>>>>>>> stakeholding nature of the organization, it's a ripe clue to the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> need<br>
>>>>>>>>>> for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> relocation to a place that is more friendly to the organization's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> operations.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> The above contains a term that (to a lawyer) has multiple possible<br>
>>>>>>>>> meanings.<br>
>>>>>>>>> The traditional way to " accommodate the multinational ... nature" of<br>
>>>>>>>>> an<br>
>>>>>>>>> organization is to incorporate it in Switzerland, and have no<br>
>>>>>>>>> effective<br>
>>>>>>>>> supervision. FIFA. IOC. No thanks.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> So I would ask, what is the threat model here? What is a (mildly<br>
>>>>>>>>> realistic)<br>
>>>>>>>>> example of a scenario in which one fears the entity will do something<br>
>>>>>>>>> legitimate and a national court (of the US, Canada, the nation of<br>
>>>>>>>>> your<br>
>>>>>>>>> choice) would have an appreciable chance of blocking it? I would<br>
>>>>>>>>> note,<br>
>>>>>>>>> for<br>
>>>>>>>>> example, that the only time I can think of that a US court overruled<br>
>>>>>>>>> ICANN<br>
>>>>>>>>> was when it froze out one of its own directors because the staff<br>
>>>>>>>>> disagreed<br>
>>>>>>>>> with his views. That violated California law empowering directors<br>
>>>>>>>>> not<br>
>>>>>>>>> to<br>
>>>>>>>>> mention any sense of natural justice. The result was not only just,<br>
>>>>>>>>> it<br>
>>>>>>>>> was<br>
>>>>>>>>> necessary. And it is Exhibit A as to why we cannot simply trust in<br>
>>>>>>>>> ICANN,<br>
>>>>>>>>> or New New Co's, good faith.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, I submit that national court supervision in an<br>
>>>>>>>>> appropriate<br>
>>>>>>>>> and democratic jurisdiction is far, far more likely to produce good<br>
>>>>>>>>> outcomes<br>
>>>>>>>>> than bad ones, while the removal of this valuable check is almost<br>
>>>>>>>>> certain to<br>
>>>>>>>>> lead to difficulties. What is more, those difficulties will not be<br>
>>>>>>>>> prevented by having the body be "international" for any currently<br>
>>>>>>>>> known<br>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of the term.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Contrary to other messages in this thread, I do not believe that<br>
>>>>>>>>> there<br>
>>>>>>>>> is<br>
>>>>>>>>> much in the way of effective monitoring of many multi-national treaty<br>
>>>>>>>>> bodies<br>
>>>>>>>>> other than by action of the member states. No one else has much real<br>
>>>>>>>>> leverage over WIPO, GATT, you name it. NGOs have some moral and<br>
>>>>>>>>> intellectual suasion, but some of their clout also comes from the<br>
>>>>>>>>> fact<br>
>>>>>>>>> that<br>
>>>>>>>>> it influences or might influence the members.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> I prefer to attempt to engineer a much surer means of dealing with<br>
>>>>>>>>> major<br>
>>>>>>>>> and<br>
>>>>>>>>> substantially foreseeable problems.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2015 11:27 AM, "parminder" <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 09 June 2015 09:09 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami<br>
>>>>>>>>>> School of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Law wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, parminder wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Are you saying that it is not possible for ICANN to undertake<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> functions that it needs to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> undertake while being an international institution<br>
>>>>>>>>>> incorporated under<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> international law, and free<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> from any countries jurisdiction in terms of its basic<br>
>>>>>>>>>> governance<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> functions? I just want to be clear.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > I don't know what an "an international institution<br>
>>>>>>>>>> incorporated under<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > international law" is except bodies like FIFA (under Swiss<br>
>>>>>>>>>> law), or UN<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > bodies, or sui generis treaty bodies. It is certainly<br>
>>>>>>>>>> *possible* for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > ICANN to have any of those statuses and to "function"; as far<br>
>>>>>>>>>> as I can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > tell, however, it's just not possible to build in meaningful<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > accountability in those structures.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> There are of course problems and issues everywhere, but it can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> hardly be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> said that UN and/or treaty bodies work without meaningful<br>
>>>>>>>>>> accountability. Further, any new international treaty/ law<br>
>>>>>>>>>> establishing<br>
>>>>>>>>>> a new body - an really international ICANN for instance - can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> write all<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the accountability method it or we want to have written in it.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > There is no general international law of incorporation of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> which I am<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > aware. Corporate (formation) law is all national law. That<br>
>>>>>>>>>> is the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > reality that must be confronted. There is no place I can go<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to get an<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > international corporate charter, and good thing too - why<br>
>>>>>>>>>> should I be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > able to exempt myself from national law?<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> This hits a fundamental issue - I see ICANN, in its ideal<br>
>>>>>>>>>> form,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> as a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> governance body, since it does governance functions, and not<br>
>>>>>>>>>> as<br>
>>>>>>>>>> a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> private corporation. So we need a new international treaty<br>
>>>>>>>>>> sanctifying<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ICANN as a global governance body - with its basic forms<br>
>>>>>>>>>> largely<br>
>>>>>>>>>> unchanged, with new accountability means (including judicial<br>
>>>>>>>>>> accountability) and not ways to be able incorporate a private<br>
>>>>>>>>>> kind of an<br>
>>>>>>>>>> entity outside national laws, which is admittedly both very<br>
>>>>>>>>>> difficult,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> and rather undesirable.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> If so, that would be an interesting assertion. Now, I am sure<br>
>>>>>>>>>> this is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> not true. However, I am not an<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> international legal expert and not able to right now build<br>
>>>>>>>>>> and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> present the whole scenario for you on<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> how it can be done. I am sure there are a number of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> international<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> organisations that do different<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> kind of complex activities and have found ways to do it under<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> international law and jurisdiction.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > But those are in the main treaty bodies.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> And if some new directions and evolutions are needed that can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> also be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> worked out (please see my last<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> email on this count).<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > Here we just disagree. I see the task as monsterously hard,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the work<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > of a decade or more.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> BTW it is a sad statement on the geo political economy of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> production in this area that<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> there is not one full fledged scenario developed by anyone on<br>
>>>>>>>>>> how<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ICANN can undertakes its<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> activities under international law/ jurisdiction - which I am<br>
>>>>>>>>>> pretty<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> sure it can. Many parties,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> including governments have called for it, and yes I agree<br>
>>>>>>>>>> someone<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> should come up with a full<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> politico-legal and institutional description of how it can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> and should<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> be done - with all the details<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> in place. And that is the sad part of it, of how things stand<br>
>>>>>>>>>> at the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> global level, had now lopsided<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> is resource distribution, all kinds of resources.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > Alas.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Not to shy away from responsibility - I am happy to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> collaborate with<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> anyone if someone can out time<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> into it.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> And no, it cannot be solved by any other country<br>
>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Apart<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> from it being still being wrong<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> in principle, how would US accept that another jurisdiction<br>
>>>>>>>>>> is better<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> than its own and accede to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> such a change. Accepting the patently justified fact that an<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> international infrastructure should be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> governed internationally, on the other hand, is much easier .<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > I would not dismiss this so quickly. I take a substantial<br>
>>>>>>>>>> fraction of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > the opposition to US residual control (for that is all we are<br>
>>>>>>>>>> talking<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > about) to be tied to the US's status as defacto hegemon.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Moving ICANN<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > to another state with a strong human rights record would<br>
>>>>>>>>>> answer that<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > part of the critique.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> > In my view, a bespoke international structure is actually much<br>
>>>>>>>>>> harder<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > -- it would need to be invented almost from scratch. And it<br>
>>>>>>>>>> is bound<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > to be flawed; national rules are the result of at least<br>
>>>>>>>>>> decades if not<br>
>>>>>>>>>> > more of trial and error.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> parminder<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Tuesday 09 June 2015 07:31 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami<br>
>>>>>>>>>> School<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> of Law wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I don't know what it means to say that ICANN should be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> subject<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> to "international<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> jurisdiction and law". For the relevant issues, that<br>
>>>>>>>>>> sounds<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> like a pretty empty set.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> As regards most of the sort of things one might expect<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to worry<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> about - e.g. fidelity to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> articles of incorporation - international law is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> basically<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> silent. And there is no<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> relevant jurisdiction either. So I remain stuck in the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> position that there must be a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> state anchor whose courts are given the job. It does<br>
>>>>>>>>>> not of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> course need to be the US,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> although I would note that the US courts are by<br>
>>>>>>>>>> international<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> standards not shy and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> actually fairly good at this sort of thing.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I do think, however, that it should NOT be Switzerland,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> as its<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> courts are historically<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> over-deferential to international bodies - perhaps as<br>
>>>>>>>>>> part of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> state policy to be an<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> attractive location for those high-spending<br>
>>>>>>>>>> international<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> meetings.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I'd be real happy with Canada, though.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, parminder wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Tuesday 09 June 2015 06:26 PM, Michael<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Froomkin -<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> U.Miami School of Law<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I think that bodies which do not need to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> fear<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> supervision by<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> legitimate courts end up<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> like FIFA. FIFA had a legal status in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Switzerland<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> that basically<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> insulated it the way<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> that the Brazilian document seems to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> suggest would<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> be what they want<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> for ICANN. (It's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> also the legal status ICANN has at times<br>
>>>>>>>>>> suggested<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> it would like.)<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> The lesson of history seems unusually clear<br>
>>>>>>>>>> here.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Agree that ICANN cannot be left jurisdictionally<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> un-supervised - that may be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> even more dangerous<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> than the present situation. However, the right<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> supervision or oversight is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> of international<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> jurisdiction and law, not that of the US . This<br>
>>>>>>>>>> is what<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Brazil has to make<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> upfront as the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> implication of what it is really seeking, and its<br>
>>>>>>>>>> shyness<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> and reticence to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> say so is what I noted as<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> surprising in an earlier email in this thread.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Not<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> putting out clearly what<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> exactly it wants would<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> lead to misconceptions about its position, which<br>
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> be seen from how<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Michael reads it. I am<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> sure this is not how Brazil meant it - to free<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ICANN from<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> all kinds of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> jurisdictional oversight<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> whatsoever - but then Brazil needs to say clearly<br>
>>>>>>>>>> what is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> it that it wants,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> and how can it can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> obtained. Brazil, please come out of your<br>
>>>>>>>>>> NetMundial<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> hangover and take<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> political responsibility for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> what you say and seek!<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> parminder<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> It's good to see a law scholar<br>
>>>>>>>>>> involved in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> this discussion. I'll<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> leave it to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> the Brazilian party to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ultimate tell whether your reading is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> correct<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> or not. In the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> meantime I'd<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> volunteer the following<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> comments.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Jun 8, 2015 10:46 PM, "Michael<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Froomkin -<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> U.Miami School of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Law"<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <<a href="mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu">froomkin@law.miami.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Perhaps I'm misreading something,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> but I<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> read this document to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> make the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> following assertions:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > 1. All restrictions on ICANN's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> location<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> must be removed.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> And the question reopened for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> deliberation by<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> all stakeholders,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> including<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> governments among others.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Only the outcome of such deliberation<br>
>>>>>>>>>> will be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> fully legitimate<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> within the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> framework of the post-2015<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ICANN.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > 2. ICANN does not have to leave the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> US but<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> must be located in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> a place<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> where the governing law has<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> certain characteristics, including<br>
>>>>>>>>>> not having<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> the possibiliity<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> that courts<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> overrule ICANN (or at<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> least the IRP).<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > (And, as it happens, the US is not<br>
>>>>>>>>>> such a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> place....)<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Not only avoiding courts overruling<br>
>>>>>>>>>> relevant<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> outcomes of the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Internet global<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> community processes,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> but also examining and resolving the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> possible<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> interferences/conflicts that<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> might arise for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> government representatives being<br>
>>>>>>>>>> subject to a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> foreign country<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> law simply in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> the process of attending<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> to their regular duties (if they were<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> fully engaged with<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ICANN).<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Quote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ">From the Brazilian perspective the existing structure<br>
>>>>>>>>>> clearly imposes limits to the participation<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ???of governmental representatives, as it is unlikely<br>
>>>>>>>>>> that a representative of a foreign government<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> w<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> i<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ll be authorized (by its own government) to formally accept a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> position in a body pertaining to a U.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> S. corporation."<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> This may be what you're getting at<br>
>>>>>>>>>> with your<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> point 3 below, but<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I'm not sure<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> whether the problem is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> only the fact that governments have<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to deal<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> with a corporate<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> form/law or<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> whether it is altogether<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> the fact that it is a single country<br>
>>>>>>>>>> law<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> without any form of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> deliberate<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> endorsement by the other<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> governments (who also have law making<br>
>>>>>>>>>> power<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> in their respective<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> country just<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> as the US government).<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Assuming your reading is correct, and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> if<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> necessary complemented<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> by my<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> remarks above, I'd be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> interested in hearing from you about<br>
>>>>>>>>>> any<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> issues you may see with<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> the BR gov<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> comments.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Mawaki<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > 3. ICANN doesn't have to change its<br>
>>>>>>>>>> form,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> but it needs a form<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> where<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> governments are comfortable.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > (And, as it happens, the corporate<br>
>>>>>>>>>> form is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> not such a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> form....)<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > What am I missing?<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Carlos A.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Afonso wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> For the ones who are following the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> IANA<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> transition process:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> attached<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> please find the comments posted by<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> government of Brazil<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> on June 03,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> 2015, in response to the call for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> public<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> comments on the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Proposal.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I generally agree with the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> comments.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> fraternal regards<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> --c.a.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > --<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > A. Michael Froomkin, <a href="http://law.tm" target="_blank">http://law.tm</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Laurie Silvers & Mitchell<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Rubenstein<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Distinguished Professor<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> of Law<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Things We<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Like (Lots),<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://jotwell.com" target="_blank">jotwell.com</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1<br>
>>>>>>>>>> (305)<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> 284-4285 |<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="mailto:froomkin@law.tm">froomkin@law.tm</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box<br>
>>>>>>>>>> 248087,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Coral Gables, FL<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> 33124 USA<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > -->It's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> warm here.<--<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > You received this message as a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> subscriber<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > For all other list information and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> functions, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > To edit your profile and to find<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the IGC's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> charter, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Translate this email:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > You received this message as a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> subscriber<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > For all other list information and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> functions, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > To edit your profile and to find<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the IGC's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> charter, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Translate this email:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> list:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> For all other list information and functions,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a 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<br>
>>>>>>>>>> charter, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Translate this email:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> list:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> For all other list information and functions,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a 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<br>
>>>>>>>>>> charter, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Translate this email:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> >><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>> A. Michael Froomkin, <a href="http://law.tm" target="_blank">http://law.tm</a><br>
>>>>>>>>> Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law<br>
>>>>>>>>> Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), <a href="http://jotwell.com" target="_blank">jotwell.com</a><br>
>>>>>>>>> Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1 (305) 284-4285 | <a href="mailto:froomkin@law.tm">froomkin@law.tm</a><br>
>>>>>>>>> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA<br>
>>>>>>>>> -->It's warm here.<--<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>>> <a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>>>>> <a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> A. Michael Froomkin, <a href="http://law.tm" target="_blank">http://law.tm</a><br>
>>>>> Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law<br>
>>>>> Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), <a href="http://jotwell.com" target="_blank">jotwell.com</a><br>
>>>>> Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1 (305) 284-4285 | <a href="mailto:froomkin@law.tm">froomkin@law.tm</a><br>
>>>>> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA<br>
>>>>> -->It's warm here.<--<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> A. Michael Froomkin, <a href="http://law.tm" target="_blank">http://law.tm</a><br>
>>> Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law<br>
>>> Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), <a href="http://jotwell.com" target="_blank">jotwell.com</a><br>
>>> Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1 (305) 284-4285 | <a href="mailto:froomkin@law.tm">froomkin@law.tm</a><br>
>>> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA<br>
>>> -->It's warm here.<--<br>
<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>