<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 15 August 2016 03:42 PM,
Erika Mann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADLdTjKH0btV2VyaUs_KPwiF9oqUPJ2oUa1dfLSYrZyot6nmHg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><font face="Verdana">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</font> 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.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADLdTjKH0btV2VyaUs_KPwiF9oqUPJ2oUa1dfLSYrZyot6nmHg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> Even if ICANN would not be based in the US, the
organization still would have to warn applicants. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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: </div>
<h3 class=""
style="font-size:18px;font-weight:normal;margin:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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"
style="color:rgb(102,0,153);text-decoration:none">WTO |
dispute settlement - the disputes - DS285</a></h3>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:10 PM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class=""><br>
<br>
On Sunday 14 August 2016 10:06 PM, John Curran wrote:<br>
> snip<br>
</span><span class="">>> More people do not use cars,
or guns, or ...... the list is endless.<br>
>> Does not mean that rules around them are not to
be considered issues of<br>
>> 'public governance' just for that reason. The
Internet today impacts<br>
>> practically everyone, whether one uses it or not.
Just as laws of<br>
>> international trade effects everyone, whether one
is directly carrying<br>
>> out trade or not.. Excuse me to say it, but this
is a very weak argument.<br>
> Ah, you’ve transition now into actual laws, and I do
agree that such is<br>
> the realm of public governance. Note that it is also
the case that laws<br>
> are made by governments – something that ICANN is
not.<br>
<br>
</span>ICANN makes considerable number of important laws of
our online<br>
existence. It, for instance, tells me that I cannot register
the domain<br>
name <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://cocacola.biz"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">cocacola.biz</a> even if
it be yet unregistered ... It tells a betting<br>
company in Antigua not to risk a gTLD in its name bec
betting is illegal<br>
in the US and its online business conducted under such a
gTLD can<br>
suddenly be brought down any day (bec ICANN insists of
staying subject<br>
to the US jurisdiction) .... A thousand such examples can be
cited of<br>
laws that ICANN makes and enforces with regard to our online
existence.<br>
Just by not calling them laws it does not make them not
laws.. BTW,<br>
ICANN does call them policies, and enforceable policies are
laws... That<br>
thing about if it quacks like a duck.....<br>
<br>
As I said in the last email, hidden powers are to be feared
even more<br>
than the declared ones....<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
parminder<br>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> /John<br>
><br>
> disclaimer: my views alone.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>