[Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law

[Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX]

Dear Thomas,

That is certainly possible. I did myself develop disadvantages to a certain
extent for some options, but the point was not to make some options appear
more or less disadvantageous or to disregard some participants' input. It's
more that I did a pass on disadvantages generally speaking. Looking back at
the document, there is certainly more to be said on the advantages indeed.
In that sense, I would echo Greg's question.

Besides, this being a collective work, I obviously invite everyone to jump
in and add their grain of salt, their 2c, or whatever else suits them.

Best,

2017-10-04 23:55 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> +1
> Jorge
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> Datum: 4. Oktober 2017 um 22:09:24 MESZ
> An: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law
>
> Hi all,
> sorry I could only join part of the call today.
>
> Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for
> most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option,
> an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages
> I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine.
>
> Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and
> mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they
> had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and
> they did not move forward because of the US contracts.
>
> Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law
> leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for
> permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data
> Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and
> now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone
> through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention
> Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial
> debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be
> changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for
> these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege
> of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the
> risk of getting breach notices by ICANN.
>
> Best,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>



-- 
Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
@rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20171005/448d80ac/attachment.html>