Thanks for this important comment. BUT: formal procedures decide the outcome of legal disputes, even if sufficient respect for the applicable law and autonomy of ICANN is accepted by the Court. It reminds me of the Cadi case here at the ECJ. Formally, UN law was accepted but for ordre public reasons not given full effect. Disputes must be settled in a proper forum and forum shopping must be avoided.

Erich Schweighofer

Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mueller, Milton L
Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Oktober 2016 03:04
An: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document

One thing to keep in mind about these court cases. The litigation concerns such things as whether ICANN was in breach of contract, whether it committed fraud, and whether it needs to be ordered to follow the IRP decision. It does _not_ put an American court in the position of deciding which of two applicants for the .AFRICA domain are the more worthy. In other words, the U.S. court in this case is not the policy maker, it is a settler of legal disputes among contracting or would-be contracting parties.

--MM

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:00 PM
To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document

Hi, here’s the website about the „.africa“ issue I mentioned in the chat: http://www.africainonespace.org/litigation.php

Cheers

Jorge

Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2016 20:59
An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document