[Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law

[Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX]

And Thomas thank you as well for that additional concrete input in this
email re CENTR's take on the issue and on the data waiver. I am sure this
can find its way in the draft somewhere in any case.

Best,

2017-10-05 0:02 GMT+02:00 Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <
raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr>:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
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/20171005/23885ad8/attachment.html>