[CCWG-ACCT] jurisdiction debates

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

International Private Law refers to the Conflict of Laws.  Which we
are not addressing.

I could not care less which judge is responsible for overtime claims
of an ICANN worker.  Never mind that ICANN is and will be located in
California and hence subject to US and California laws.

What we need to look at is the relationship between ICANN and Third
Parties.

The contracted ones are not so much an issue, as contracts usually
state jurisdiction and venues.

Now what about non-contracted parties affected by ICANN's acts and/or
omissions? That exposes ICANN to 240-some jurisdictions, whether
ICANN wants or likes it or not.

el

On 2016-07-13 16:42, Alberto Soto wrote:
> I agree partially.  Because we are using "jurisdiction" as a
> colloquial term referring to a territory, and not bad.
> 
> But legally in the Germanic-Roman law and common law, case law is
> the power derived from the sovereignty of the State, to apply the
> law in the case, solving definitively and irrevocably a dispute,
> which is exerted exclusively by the courts composed of autonomous
> and independent judges.
> 
> As Paul says, in the case of Turkey, hence the "competence" of the
> judges who have law will apply.
> 
> So "competence" is related to the territory, functionality, etc.  It
> is, here it is determined that court (Jurisdiction) has competence.
> Best regards
> 
> Alberto Soto
[...]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/