[Acct-Legal] Request for advice on Swiss law

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

I do not have an issue to postpone, in particular in light of the
comment from Sabine which is quite valid in my view.


However, where did we agree *EVER* to let these decisions be made by
the Legal Sub Team?  My understanding/recollection, is in fact that
we said that the decisions are made in the plenum but communicated
via the SubTeam to Counsel.

And, because you are going to ignore this anyway, I object for the
record.


The use of the word "tendentious" by the archetypical lobbyist is
rather fascinating.  This ad hominem comment reminds me of Rhetorics
102: "Obfuscate, Oppose, Ignore, Ridicule".


el

On 2015-05-12 07:45 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
> Counsel,
> 
> Given the discussion we’re holding.  I please ask you to put
> this assignment on hold until the legal sub-team comes to a
> conclusion.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> León
> 
>> El 11/05/2015, a las 22:29, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> escribió:
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> This was a comment in the Public Comment forum.  Mr.  Hill (who
>> happens to be resident in Switzerland, I believe) doesn't need an
>> SOI. I believe Mr.  Hill made several rather lengthy and somewhat
>> tendentious submissions to the ICG and possibly to the other
>> communities, in a somewhat similar vein.  You might be amused by
>> them.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thanks Josh for your response.
>>
>>     I once again want to reiterate my opposition to any further
>>     inquiry of this sort that focuses exclusively on Switzerland.
>>     I think it is absolutely ridiculous at this stage to open up
>>     the question of jurisdiction, but if we are going to do so I
>>     request that Delaware, Ireland, Estonia and Iceland all be
>>     examined under the same terms as Switzerland.
>>
>>     The post by Mr.  Hill which prompted this inquiry did talk
>>     about ICANN's incorporation, not just that of SO/AC's.  It
>>     was also very prejudiced in that:
>>
>>     Quite apart from that, ICANN should not be incorporated in
>>     the USA, or in any other powerful state that might be tempted
>>     to interfere with ICANN for political or economic reasons.
>>     It should be incorporated in a neutral state that is unlikely
>>     to interfere, for example Switzerland.
>>
>>
>>
>>     it explicitly rejects jurisdiction in the United States on
>>     grounds that a "powerful state" may be more tempted to
>>     interfere with ICANN for "political or economic reasons".  It
>>     is my view that: 1.  the United States has generally been a
>>     good steward of the internet, and 2.  history is replete with
>>     examples of less powerful neutral states acting in their own
>>     self interest.  Switzerland included.  I'd prefer that a
>>     change in jurisdiction be based upon fact rather than upon a
>>     speculative theoretical assumption.  I also sense this is
>>     neither the time or place for this discussion.
>>
>>     I'm sorry for being a bit of a pain on this but it's a matter
>>     of principle.  I'm opposed to opening up jurisdiction at this
>>     point for a number of reasons that most of us are familiar
>>     with.  However, if we are going to do so equity and simple
>>     competence in fulfilling our duties oblige us to look at more
>>     options than a single mountainous country in central Europe.
>>
>>     On another related matter: I have been unable to locate Mr.
>>     Hill's SOI. If somebody would be so kind as to direct me to
>>     it I would be appreciative.  I'm sure it is my oversight.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Ed
>>
[...]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150512/2afc080a/smime.p7s>