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

[avri doria]

On 15-Aug-16 06:43, parminder wrote:
> 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.

I thought that this has to do with the jurisdiction of the registry and
the rregistrar itself.  And while it may cause concern because there are
not as many registries and registrars in non US jurisdictions, there are
some and could be more in time. It may also mean that greater efforts
should be taken to inform people of the jurisdiction their registration
is under and whose laws they are subject to, but I do not see how the
location of ICANN main office or place of incorproation affects this issue.

In any case aren't the issues relatiing to the jurisdiction of 
registries and registrars  among the ones being discussed in the Juris
sub group?

But the conversation has been quite far ranging so could well be missing
the point of the disagreement.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus