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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Aug 16 13:40:26 UTC 2016


On Monday 15 August 2016 07:55 PM, avri doria wrote:
>
> 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 the examples I gave (Antiguan betting company, and Indian generic
drug company), a company which is also the registry for a closed gTLD is
the 'offending party' ( for US administration). We are of course only
speaking of such companies which are not registered in the US, and so US
gov has no direct control over the concerned registry. In such cases,
like with owners of domain names like rojadirecta.com, US government has
gone to the higher level in the DNS chain that was registered in the US
- which in this case was the .com registry - and enforced removal of the
domain space. (The only apparent constraint in doing such a thing is
that this should be able to be achieved without unacceptable collateral
damage -- like asking ICANN to remove a whole gLTD when just one domain
name owner may be offending). In the case on non US closed gTLDs, going
to the ICANN to remove the gTLD, is the exact equivalent of this
situation, and is something just waiting to happen.

This is how the place of incorporation of, or the jurisdictional remit
over, the ICANN is relevant. A key issue in the work stream 2 discussion.

Yes, I hear some people say that the same arguments are being made over
and over again. Well, the problem remains unchanged, so I dont see how
the key arguments would change. And, to the extent the problem is very
important to some, the arguments can be expected to be repeated.

parminder

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list