[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
nigel at roberts.co.uk
Tue Jul 1 20:42:27 UTC 2014
It is. I'm pulling his chain.
Like Kierkegaard but unlike ur-Dobby the House-elf he has many socks.
On 07/01/2014 06:53 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> I am not subscribed to the list, but this sound like drivel from The Plonker. Am I correct?
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>> On Jul 1, 2014, at 18:41, Nigel Roberts <nigel at roberts.co.uk> wrote:
>> I have NO IDEA what this means.
>> But if I use Google Translate to translate it first into French, and then into Swahili, it makes more sense then.
>>> On 07/01/2014 05:12 PM, FSP4NET wrote:
>>> At 11:57 28/06/2014, Chris Disspain wrote:
>>>>> However if you think this particular 'point of law' has no
>>>>> implication to the legal and jurisdictional status of ICANN and the
>>>>> important global governance functions that is does, I will rest my
>>>>> case here.
>>>> Speaking as a lawyer and a ccTLD manager a) I would be wary of drawing
>>>> ‘points of law’ from a news story and b) even if the report is
>>>> accurate, the decision does not have any implication to the legal and
>>>> jurisdictional status of ICANN.
>>> Dear Chris,
>>> Speaking as people caring about their glocal digitality: a) we would be
>>> wary of drawing technical operational trust from any comment on points
>>> of any law and b) we would avoid using services of which the stability
>>> and continuity could be subject to legal and juridictional issues. Our
>>> need is for our machines to work 24/366 with the least possible
>>> technical support and no legal counsel.
>>> One of fsp4net could be survivor
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss