[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 9 Apr 2016 6:03 a.m., "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> The substantive point it; is to proceed from an existing case,
rojadirecta had taken a gTLD, it were .rojadirecta (or for wikipedia's case
.wikipedia), and the same case had come to the same US court, where would
its order to take down the web presence of the respective businesses be
directed?  Would you care to respond to this point? Thanks.
>

SO: Not Alejandro but I would say in theory that such order may go to the
registry first but could also go to ICANN and whether ICANN would comply
depends on the existing agreements ICANN has with the registry running
.rojadirecta. However it's one thing to receive an order, it's another
thing to comply, that's why ICANN has legal team who try to
defend/explain/educate in such cases (if it exists)

However, I guess your question above still begs the response of asking what
will be different if it was a non-US order; will ICANN not receive an order
if it's based outside USA? Will ICANN not receive an order if it's based on
treaties?

Cheers!
> parminder
>
>> This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this statement
will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as
flawed as the statement.)
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>> <message tail snipped>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160409/dfee8593/attachment-0001.html>