[Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

[parminder]

Hi All

I do not agree to a partial quoting of the sub group's mandate in the
preamble - -which appears to make it look like we are only concerned
with where choice of law is available (private law) and not where it is
not available (public laws). Such approaches become kind of 'creeping
acquisition' whereby the mandate keeps shifting towards one side, away
from the other.

Second, I will like to know the status of the consideration of that
other question which was proposed about how existing legal/institutional
frameworks impacted ICANN's policy and operational work. /*Can the
co-chairs clarify please? */

As argued often before, I do not agree to these 3 questions going out
and not that other one. It should be one exercise, all of them together,
or none of them. As they say 'in politics what we dont do is a important
s what we do'. There has been a lot of support for this other, 4th ,
question, and I think that support must also count for not sending just
3 questions out in absence of enough agreement about the 4th question.
That at least is my position.

thanks, parminder


On Tuesday 06 December 2016 08:41 PM, McAuley, David wrote:
>
> Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues,
>
>  
>
> I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions
> we may send out for comment.
>
>  
>
> With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC
> Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our
> consideration.
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>  
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161208/b403f94e/attachment.html>