[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Grec,
The limited no. of participant except US nationals or US affiliated in your
group is very few thus you can not and shall not count on that .The CCWG is
the most legal, valid, and countable .
Pls note that there is a total imbalance of participation of non US.
I have already made known this fact to CCWG Co-Chairs.
No questions should be sent out before being discussed and agreed
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-05 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> Kavouss,
>
> Based on our work plan, we will get to remedies after we identify and
> agree upon issues.  If there are issues for which immunity should be
> considered as a possible remedy, we will discuss this concept at that
> time.  The same is true of the concept of "additional jurisdiction."  I
> have not seen the third issue raised in this group, nor is it mentioned in
> Annex 12, so I can't say that this issue is in scope for this subgroup.
>
> "Question 3" is on the agenda as item #3.  Please be more cautious in
> raising complaints of "suppression," as there was no suppression.  The
> additional question is on the mailing list, just in a different email
> thread, as it has been all along.
>
> Now that you've brought up the issue of support for this question, I need
> to say that your count is incorrect.  There has been a good deal more
> opposition than support for sending out this third question.  Nonetheless,
> we've given this question the best chance to gain further support by
> continuing to discuss how it could be revised, which is only fair.  But
> it's also fair to understand that support for this question has been
> limited so far, compare to those who have voiced objections to it.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Grec,
>>
>> When you address the following ISSUES:
>>
>> 1.Immunity taking into account who / what is immune vis a vis whom / what?
>>
>> 2. Provision of additional jurisdiction such as what, Swiss jurisdiction
>> or what?
>>
>> 3. Sovereignty of States via a vis Californian Law or law of any State?
>>
>> Please kindly put back the question 3 which was on the mailing list till
>> yesterday evening Central European time but it was suppressed as results of
>> only two objections while many others were in favour of it with some
>> language aligbnment
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> 2016-12-05 6:09 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the agenda for Meeting #12 at 19:00 UTC on December 5.  Please
>>> continue to discuss the "experience solicitation" questions and the
>>> proposed additional question between now and then.  Attention to the Google
>>> doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYo
>>> FVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing is also important to keep our
>>> work moving forward.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20161205/e39898d0/attachment.html>