[CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Aug 15 10:43:16 UTC 2016


On Monday 15 August 2016 03:42 PM, Erika Mann wrote:
> I hesitate to get involved in this debate, it feels like the same
> arguments are made over and over. Maybe it's time to have a longer
> discussion at one of our meetings about this topic. 
>
> Anyhow, briefly, the Antigua/Barbuda Online Gambling case has very
> little to do with ICANN being an US based regulator but more with a
> General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO) case pending between US
> and Antigua/Barbuda. It's one of those not very rational cases that
> will continue to impact the Internet gambling environments.

Thanks Erika, I know the case has nothing to do with ICANN... And I did
not say that it had.. I just said that an Antigua based betting company
will be ill-advised to try to take up a closed gTLD in its name and
conduct its business under it, because it is liable to be seized
whenever US authorities want to do so (by their jurisdiction control
over ICANN) . Same is true of a drug company, say from India, planning
global e-com trade of generic drugs. It will also be ill-advised to risk
a closed gTLD in its name to do such global business, for the same reason.

Whereby, one can see that businesses of other countries are denied an
important right that US business fully retains, to get closed gTLD in
their names for their online operations. What I fail to understand is
how many people here - I note mostly US based ones - see nothing wrong
with it, and also do not see this as an exercise of a public governance
power by ICANN, in this case in an unjust manner.

parminder

> Even if ICANN would not be based in the US, the organization still
> would have to warn applicants. 
>
> It's an interesting case and might guide our discussion about this
> topic in interesting ways, for those of you who are WTO junkies like I
> am, here's the link: 
>
>
>       WTO | dispute settlement - the disputes - DS285
>       <https://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFgv7VlsPOAhVJOhoKHRu2BXoQFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wto.org%2Fenglish%2Ftratop_e%2Fdispu_e%2Fcases_e%2Fds285_e.htm&usg=AFQjCNFXsQnuymsnUHgQi9XSWQihr_OwSQ&sig2=aI_j9fHJJ6iCB_52kHOk7g>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:10 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Sunday 14 August 2016 10:06 PM, John Curran wrote:
>     > snip
>     >> More people do not use cars, or guns, or ...... the list is endless.
>     >> Does not mean that rules around them are not to be considered
>     issues of
>     >> 'public governance'  just for that reason. The Internet today
>     impacts
>     >> practically everyone, whether one uses it or not. Just as laws of
>     >> international trade effects everyone, whether one is directly
>     carrying
>     >> out trade or not.. Excuse me to say it, but this is a very weak
>     argument.
>     > Ah, you’ve transition now into actual laws, and I do agree that
>     such is
>     > the realm of public governance.  Note that it is also the case
>     that laws
>     > are made by governments – something that ICANN is not.
>
>     ICANN makes considerable number of important laws of our online
>     existence. It, for instance, tells me that I cannot register the
>     domain
>     name cocacola.biz <http://cocacola.biz> even if it be yet
>     unregistered ... It tells a betting
>     company in Antigua not to risk a gTLD in its name bec betting is
>     illegal
>     in the US and its online business conducted under such a gTLD can
>     suddenly be brought down any day (bec ICANN insists of staying subject
>     to the US jurisdiction) .... A thousand such examples can be cited of
>     laws that ICANN makes and enforces with regard to our online
>     existence.
>     Just by not calling them laws it does not make them not laws.. BTW,
>     ICANN does call them policies, and enforceable policies are
>     laws... That
>     thing about if it quacks like  a duck.....
>
>     As I said in the last email, hidden powers are to be feared even more
>     than the declared ones....
>
>     parminder
>
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > /John
>     >
>     > disclaimer: my views alone.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160815/af86e51c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list