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