[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 11:10:30 EDT 2015


My issue is that I don't think people really know what they're doing.
I tend to be inclined to get something international in place, except
I just don't see any discussion that really gets what the implications
are.  The techies all think it's just a matter of keeping the
contracts as much the same as possible, and they don't get that the
context changes everything.  And the civil society folks have a
different kind of short-sightedness (I think the JNC folks are trying
to push to more substantive discussion, but they miss some basics in
their eagerness to establish a shortsighted view of legitimacy.  And
the other camp, which tends to talk MS-ism and resist governmental
encroachment per se, also doesn't see that they're not living in
reality).



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

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


More information about the Governance mailing list