[CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
Dr Eberhard Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Wed Apr 15 10:06:13 UTC 2015
To be honest, the point fits nicely into the current discussion.
ICANN was not rushed into the decision to allow .SUCKS and there was
an involved process and there was sufficient time to object against
.SUCKS through several fora.
Now I don't know if someone objected citing the fear of this just
being the vehicle for abusive registrations that it seems to be, and
ICANN rejected, but if that had been the case we could even look at
this from an accountability perspective.
But if not, now that it's done it is done. And, to be honest, all
the more kudos for someone to come up with a successful business
model. Even though I would have not done this even if I could have.
There have been ICANN discussions about content in the past (.XXX
anyone?) and you do not want to go there, trust me.
And so what if someone registers putyournamehere.SUCKS? You could
pursue a UDRP or even much cheaper ask Google under the European
privacy rules to block it from their searches.
It does support my point of looking at these things carefully, though.
On 2015-04-15 10:25, Barrack Otieno wrote:
> Maybe the approach being used by .NGO to clarify whether
> registrants are legitimate NGO's could suffice in this case?, i
> don't see ICANN's
> role though.
> On 4/15/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the
>> moment may indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that
>> may result to Paul's concern of jurisdiction in near future. An
>> example is the requirement imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on
>> GAC's advice). While this is not about pricing; censoring who
>> gets a domain by professional qualification will sure create some
>> variation globally.
>> Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this
>> (policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be
>> considered by the ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't
>> act on a unilateral decision of a section of the community
>> without consultation.
>> On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>> Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will
>>> continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
>>> If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is
>>> probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood,
>>> may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
>>> On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
>>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It
>>> appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a
>>> rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to
>>> purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise
>>> period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s
>>> response is interesting and may have relevance to our
>>> accountability discussion. It seems (
>>> that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and
>>> Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is
>>> predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
>>> I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to
>>> those national authorities because it is where they are located
>>> or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the
>>> underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence
>>> of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will
>>> continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a
>>> role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our
>>> discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding
>>> factor we ought to be aware of
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community