[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[parminder]

Even if we agree with these distinctions (which I dont though), any
State would not ask you what kind of jurisdiction you admit and which
not. That is the whole point of state's sovereignty.   So the main issue
is, what is the plan for those kinds of 'interferences' you are not
ready to admit. Please spell out what is going to be done as these
non-admissible interferences become imminent. Or is the plan to wait
till one happens and then think about what to do?

parminder

On Friday 24 June 2016 09:31 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>> PC I don’t think it should include private litigation brought against
>> ICANN and heard in state or federal court;
>>
>> MM: agree
>>
>> PC or law enforcement actions
>>
>> MM: that depends. Antitrust could be ok but I could think of other
>> LEA actions that might constitute interference
>
> Agree with MM
>
>>
>> PC or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.
>>
>> MM: of course.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160624/bac1eddf/attachment.html>