[Area 4] Business Constituency Stress Test #2

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Steve,

Members of the Business Constituency are aware that personal 
jurisdiction* would allow claims against the Corporation brought in 
state and federal court, when successful, to be remedied through 
recourse to the Corporation's presence in the United States.

Therefore, in positing a "no legal redress" stress test the Business 
Constituency is first presupposing that the Corporation's assets, 
including its principal source of recurring revenues, the .com registry, 
exist outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Could you clarify this please?

Thanks in advance,

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

* For WS4 contributors unfamiliar with civil procedure in the United 
States, the legal issue is whether the successor to the Corporation, as 
hypothesized by the Business Constituency, meets the "minimal contacts" 
test. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 
(1987), and more generally, International Shoe v. Washington, 366 U.S. 
310 (1945).