<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 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;}
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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
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;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:622268588;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1723957148 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I’ve been watching this dialogue and it seems to cycle and recycle the same problematic.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">ICANN and the Internet DNS are recognized to be transnational and critics of the US don’t like or don’t trust the
“national legal anchor” in California to which ICANN is moored. But all they can put forward as an alternative are vague references to “international jurisdiction” or “international law.” It is then pointed out that there is no existing international treaty
or law that applies, much less any courts with binding authority over ICANN at the international level. Then some say, “well, we will make them.”
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What people seem to be missing in this exchange is that we are ALREADY making a transnational jurisdiction and law
within the framework of ICANN. Far too much emphasis is being placed on the law and jurisdiction under which ICANN is incorporated, which is really not that relevant once the USG is no longer writing and awarding the IANA contract. What matters are:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1)<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The institutional designs and structures that make ICANN accountable to its publics, including
binding limits on its scope and mission and a “judiciary” branch for binding dispute resolution<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2)<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">ICANN’s own policy making processes, who is represented within it and how<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3)<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Last but not least, the _<i><span style="font-style:italic">substantive policies</span></i>_
that come out of ICANN (which everyone seems to neglect); i.e., what are you actually allowed to do (or prohibited from doing) with domain names, your registration data, etc. How are domain names regulated?
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The Brazilian idea that 1), 2) and 3) will all magically improve if we shift the territorial jurisdiction of ICANN
seems to be an idea completely disconnected from reality – and a huge distraction from the actual issues we face in reforming ICANN. For those of us involved in the actual nuts and bolts of designing the transition, it is amazing how quickly these jurisdictional
issues fell by the wayside, because they just don’t address or contribute anything to the basic problems of accountability and good public policy. Indeed, as Froomkin has repeatedly pointed out, the more specific you get about what would happen in some kind
of major jurisdictional shift, the murkier all the accountability issues become.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Is it not obvious that if you are holding up international law as the basis for ICANN governance and accountability
that you are talking about negotiating a new international treaty that would instantly disenfranchise most of the people here and put everything in the hands of states? Aside from the decade or two, or three that would be required, how accountable would the
results of those negotiations be, especially for the 2/3 of the worlds population who don’t live under democratic states?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Brazil and India are taking a typical state-centric view of the world and I am surprised that so many in civil society
are misled by it. Either we are designing global internet governance institutions that serve the interests of the internet nation, or we are using IG as a proxy for geopolitical rivalries among states.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>