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

Zakir Syed zakirbinrehman at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 16 18:34:47 UTC 2016


Yes, but these can be taken as suggestions for future bylaws changes, not?
Best, 
Zakir


      From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
 To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
 Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
   
Dear All,The Mission, Mandate as well as ICANN functions were extensivelydiscussed by CCWG.The major elements of those are already contained in the new approvedBylawsThere is therefore NO NEED to discuss thosealready agreed issues Kavouss 
2016-08-15 12:44 GMT+02:00 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

  
 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 (kind of) 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
 
  
   
 On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:10 PM, parminder <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 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 @icann.org
 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/accountability-cross-c ommunity
   
  
  
 
 
______________________________ _________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross- Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/accountability-cross- community




_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
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/20160816/dff2cd66/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list