[CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability

[Seun Ojedeji]

Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the moment may
indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that may result to Paul's
concern of jurisdiction in near future. An example is the requirement
imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on GAC's advice). While this is not about
pricing; censoring who gets a domain by professional qualification will
sure create some variation globally.

Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this
(policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be considered by the
ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't act on a unilateral decision
of a section of the community without consultation.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to
> wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
>
> If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not
> fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what
> everyone wishes for.
>
> Steve
>
> On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> All
>
> As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks.   It appears
> that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant
> fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain
> name in the pre-release Sunrise period.   Some have protested to ICANN
> about this.  ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our
> accountability discussion.  It seems (
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-created-sucks-now-wants-government-to-keep-it-from-spinning-out-of-control/)
> that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to
> determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and
> Canadian law (and thus illegal).
>
> I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those
> national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely,
> because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts.  But it
> does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which
> I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to
> play a role.  I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our
> discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought
> to be aware of
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
> 509 C St. NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
> <image002.jpg>
> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150415/9d92a71d/attachment.html>