Dear Jordan I am not sure what type of PDP you suggest for unilateral decision of American court for delegation or transfer of .ir to third party . We wish to limit such type of order as well as the potential influence of US government or any other government to interfere with the ccTLD of any other country based on founded or non founded claims If neither ICANN not any other entity is authorised to intervene or interfere with ccTLD of any country or any geographic territory that equally applies to US government, US court and say other government and its court Fortunately New Zealand or U.K. ccTLD were not yet subject to such interference Pls kindly clarify your position . In other word are you supporting such interference or opposing to that Reply to Milton If you believe that the sub group should consult GNSO and Jordan and Nigel believe that the subgroup should consult ccNSO to address such disturbing unilateral influence of US government and its court and any other government and its court then we need to close the shop of Grec and stop all discussions Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters can be made.
That’s fine. The same is true of the GNSO and the ASO for that matter. This subgroup identifies problems and recommends solutions. It’s up to others to develop policies to implement the solutions.
Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
<image002.jpg> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction