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

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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction