[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Paul Rosenzweig]

+1 Andrew -- in both regards
Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:47 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 06:08:41PM +0530, parminder wrote:

> You construct law as something fully technical when it actually is 
> basically political

This claim is a false dichotomy, and is therefore a fallacious premise in
the argument.  Anything that follows from it therefore fails on the basis of
this faulty premise.

I do think there's something that is basically political here, however, and
that is the emphasis on jurisdiction over attention to the detail of how the
accountability system that's already been delivered will work in practice.
That would be considerably more useful, in my opinion.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community