[Acct-Legal] Request for advice on Swiss law
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Tue May 12 09:31:09 UTC 2015
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>
More information about the Ccwg-accountability5
mailing list