<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Good Question and good path to further pursue the matter.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-11 18:52 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" target="_blank">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Steve,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Could you clarify this please?<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance,<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
* 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).<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org" target="_blank">Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/ccwg-accountability4</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>