[Ws2-jurisdiction] Additional Materials for our call

[parminder]

Greg

Why the alternative given by Seun, as amending David's, is not there?

Quoting Seun's email , he proposed

"Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has
been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies
and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so,
please provide documentation, including  specific examples and
 references to specific laws."

/*To make it clear, I do not agree with this*/, but since David's option
is listed, Seun's must also be, becuase his amendment is very
substantive, covering future cases,

Though I think there may be sentence construction issues with the above,
which I may suggest reformulating as

"Are you aware of any material, documented /*facts*/ (instance(s))
where*by* ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled
from (unable to) pursue/*or pursuing*/ the actual operation of its
policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction?
If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples and
 references to specific laws."

/*(added in bold, removed in brackets)*/

I have tried to keep the intent of Seun's proposal, as I see it, whereby
both past disabilities wrt disability to pursue operation of policies
etc, and future ones, are equally covered. 

I repeat, I do not agree with the above, as it is still too constrictive
to allow useful inputs. People are being told to become full-scale
formal researchers, which is not how such consultations work.

parminder



On Tuesday 10 January 2017 01:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Additional materials are attached.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/34c8bc5f/attachment.html>