<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=us-ascii"><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I would be interested if various of the folks on this elist with whom I/we have jousted on these issues might be interested in commenting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> November 20, 2016 10:46 AM<br><b>To:</b> internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Internet Policy] ICANN's US jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think the larger question is how much (and what specifically) in our expectations and assumptions concerning Internet Governance (and so much else) have been based on presumed continuity and (benign?) rationality of the US as the “necessary power”. With a Trump Presidency these assumptions must be rethought and the frameworks and implicit expectations must be reworked.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I’m wondering what this group for example would recognize how our framework of understanding and agreement or disagreement on the issue of the significance or not of “US jurisdiction” has changed in the last 10 days.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> InternetPolicy [mailto:and <a href="mailto:internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org">internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br><b>Sent:</b> November 20, 2016 9:18 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internet Policy] ICANN's US jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Further;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The US Federal Communications Commission ( FCC) clearly has authority over Internet names and numbers although it has currently chosen to forbear application of this authority (which by definition is a reversible decision). This fact of forbearance was recently stated by FCC chair. To quote him, while referring to ICANN's remit on Internet names and number, he said;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>"</span>“In fact, the Commission forebore [sic] from Section 251(e)—the provision that gives the Commission authority over telephone numbers. IP addressing—in contrast to telephone numbers—is already governed by IANA...." <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/276489-fcc-response-to-sen-cruz-reveals-hidden-icann-agenda-in-net">http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/276489-fcc-response-to-sen-cruz-reveals-hidden-icann-agenda-in-net</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p>I am sure, the legally inclined here would know that an authority can only do forbearance with regard to an authority that it actually has, but chooses not to apply -- a decision that can be reversed at any time. Much like FCC reversed its earlier decision to treat the Internet as title 1 service to treating it as title 2. Very similarly, without any new legislative requirement, FCC (the new Trump's FCC?) can decide to vacate its forbearance regarding Internet names and numbers and begin extending its authority over them.<o:p></o:p></p><p>I have already quoted FCC chair to use the term 'forbearance' with regard to authority over names and numbers. <o:p></o:p></p><p>Now let me quote the web site of Electronic Frontier Foundation - normally legally very sound people, about what 'forbearance' as a legal concept means.<o:p></o:p></p><p>"Forbearance is how we help ensure the FCC does what is necessary – and no more. <b><i>It isn’t an iron-clad limit; the FCC must choose to do it, and it can change course if need be</i></b>." (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></p><p>I think the above makes amply clear that FCC can, as and when it wishes, exercise regulatory authority over ICANN/ IANA... <o:p></o:p></p><p>parminder <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sunday 20 November 2016 09:59 PM, parminder wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thursday 10 November 2016 09:29 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>I do not think that there is any obvious way for the US to assert regulatory power over IANA at present. No agency has the authority, so legislation would be needed.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>All US regulatory agencies that have regulatory competence in any given area - health, communication, trade, civil rights, whatever -- have remit over IANA to the extend that its policies and operation affect these areas. This is so for every country at all time. This is just as such regulatory agencies - directly or through courts - have competence for ensuring compliance from a country's banking/ finance system so that their regulatory powers can be enforced as per their mandate. I do not know its exact statute, but I am sure that FDA, for instance, pressing a regulatory case about drugs etc would be able to get US's banks etc to act in a manner that is required for FDA to meet and enforce its mandate. <br><br>Are you really saying that Office for Foreign Assets Control does not have regulatory / executive power over IANA? I understand that recently ISOC could not provide some Iranians its fellowship because of OFAC related issues. I really do not know how ICANN extends such fellowships to citizens of countries under OFAC control list, much less allows ICANN/ IANA to transact business with these countries and/ or their citizens. I did ask recently on this list if ICANN has an OFAC licence in this regard but did not get any response Anyone willing to let us know?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> To the extent that the effects would be extraterritorial, the courts now require very clear authority from Congress, and this doesn't currently exist and is not often given. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Are you saying that for a US court to give a ruling having extra territorial bearing, they need to be authorised by congress? This is not at all my understanding (for US, or for any other country court). For instance, in the .africa case, this particular point has never been presented by anyone, and court has take cognizance of the case of which almost the entire effect will be outside the US. Even in the .ir case, this position was taken by no one. I really do not understand your point here. <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>To the extent that taking 'ownership' of IANA or anything else is involved, the US would have to pay compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment - which requires payment of full market value of the asset taken. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>It seems to me (please correct me if I am wrong) that you are taking IANA or domains names directory to be asset or property. Am I wrong? But wasnt the precisely opposite case argued during the transition process by the US gov- and almost everyone supporting the transition - that this is not property, and therefore to divest it does not need legislative approval. How can we reverse the argument now? <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>And it would cause far more diplomatic pain than the US is likely to think it is worth. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Well, this is an old and unsustainable justification. I, and other citizens of the non US world, are not ready to leave the oversight of this important global system to one country with the simple fancy protection that US would not do certain things because of 'diplomatic pain'. While never sustainable, it is so much less so with the incoming US administration being clear that they have a mind fully their own (which I from far suppose no one really really understands well yet) and certainly they are leaning towards US unilateralism, and are not great votaries of US's moral authority being used for global purposes and so on (said with all due respect for US's electoral choice, pl do not misunderstand me). <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>So I really think this is not a great worry. IANA transition is a done deal. <br><br>On the other hand, ICANN situs in the US has some legal consequences, e.g. US antitrust principles might apply.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Might apply? Is there any doubt in this? I think it is good to base the discussion on facts, and not far-fetched hopes or whatever. Of course all public laws of US apply on ICANN, there isnt any 'might' about it, any more than there is any doubt about application of al public laws of India on my NGO. Further, I often hear about US anti trust laws applying -- is there any special constitutional status of anti trust laws of the US over and above other kinds of public laws, whether in the area of security, health, civil rights enforcement, and so on... Obviously, not just anti trust laws, but each and every public law of US, of every sector, applies to ICANN. Which precisely is the statement of the problem.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>But I would argue almost all of those consequences are 1) unlikely <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>This is said without reason or justification - why is it unlikely? <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>and 2) if the unlikely happens it would be because of actions whose redress was, on balance, good for the community.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>I think this may be more for non US citizens to weigh on and 'decide'. US citizens are in any case under a social contract to accept US law as being in their larger interest or the public interest. We others have no such relationship with US law, and are not a part in making it. In the recent US elections, I was given no chance to give my opinion on electing either US legislature or its chief executive. I have no reason to trust that these will work with my best interest in mind -- especially so when the other party be an US interest. One just keep hoping that democracy still means something to people here. <br><br>parminder <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Note for example that, to date, the US courts have rejected antitrust claims against ICANN, although that was when its connection to the government was not severed and hence it benefited from the association. <br><br>On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, parminder wrote: <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Hi All <br><br>First of all, I am sure folks here know well that there are two quite different issues here -- transition of ownership of <br>IANA is very different from the jurisdiction issue (although the two together, for me, constitute the oversight problem, a <br>matter of contention since the WSIS days). I say this because the civil society letter I posted had noting to do with IANA <br>transition and only discussed the jurisdiction issue, but the subsequent discussions seem to entirely be about IANA <br>transfer. <br><br>On the jurisdiction issue: <br><br>There is no difference between Obama administration’s view point and that what is expected from Trump's (or what could <br>have been Hillary's). All of them are clear that ICANN should stay in US jurisdiction. <br><br>On IANA transition: <br><br>I do not agree that Trump cannot do anything (though he may or may not do it). There is a lot of executive, regulatory and <br>legislative competence in the US state to take IANA back. For instance, like FCC recently revised the assertion of its <br>jurisdiction over Internet as a public utility (in its net neutrality order), it could as well vacate its - recently <br>expressed -- forbearance on the naming and addressing system of the Internet (it already regulated the telephones naming <br>and addressing system) and begin 'interfering' with IANA, if not take it over. <br><br>As said, there are many other possibilities, and of course a new legislation can practically do anything. And now we have <br>Trump! Sorry, I do not normally comment on other country's democratic choices, but unfortunately, even though I was not <br>given the right to vote here, US presidency strongly affects my and other non USian's rights, much more so in this area of <br>Internet governance that I work in. I dont want it, but it does. <br><br>But if a lot of non USians still want to keep staying in this non democratic global order, I just find it very <br>unfortunate. My pet theory of course is -- this is a trans national elite that finds its interests best protected in this <br>across-the-borders alliance, which provides "political safety" from their domestic non-elites (sorry, but that very <br>attitude backfired in the US to give the US its Trump!). The non US part of this trans national elite has accepted the US <br>as its political capital, however grudgingly (in swallowing their ethnic, national, racial etc pride), in preference to <br>being subject to their own domestic politics, because the former protects their political economy interests and the latter <br>can threaten them. <br><br>A time for rethink guys if there ever was one! <br><br>parminder <br><br><br>On Thursday 10 November 2016 04:31 AM, vinton cerf wrote: <br> it would be difficult for the president to intervene in a transition that is already completed. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>[....] <br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__portal.isoc.org_&d=DQICAg&c=y2w-uYmhgFWijp_IQN0DhA&r=htk-qglSwjDjqFyFJF2VcBU74UT6oExZ7rbv4X9o-p0&m=wjf8a1yQgjPLFgZo_Wd4dGfoTIFekmvqxHnPn0Utrsc&s=MReKxP_Z51uzNZQ3VnlX-3sCSdXj3-QR4wQb0Z2T8vc&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__portal.isoc.org_&d=DQICAg&c=y2w-uYmhgFWijp_IQN0DhA&r=htk-qglSwjDjqFyFJF2VcBU74UT6oExZ7rbv4X9o-p0&m=wjf8a1yQgjPLFgZo_Wd4dGfoTIFekmvqxHnPn0Utrsc&s=MReKxP_Z51uzNZQ3VnlX-3sCSdXj3-QR4wQb0Z2T8vc&e=</a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://portal.isoc.org/">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>