[Area 4] Business Constituency Stress Test #2

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
Good Question and good path to further pursue the matter.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-01-11 18:52 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>:

> 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).
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150111/722ab99f/attachment.html>