[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Greg Shatan]

I have no idea what you mean by "non-admissible."

On Friday, June 24, 2016, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160624/6782ac7d/attachment.html>