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

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

>>
>>
>>
>> Which bits specifically?
>
>Those specific bits that make the case the ICANN policy is hindering 
>growth of registries and registrars in "underserved" regions.

What exactly is an “underserved” region?

Which countries qualify according to your criteria?

What is the actual issue that you feel that ICANN policy needs to address?

I’ve read the comments previously and was involved in a lot of the discussions, but the actual definition of “underserved” was never addressed properly by anyone.

There are also plenty of thoughtful comments from people who would consider that the very concept of “underserved” is a total red herring. 
There are very few places where you cannot get a domain name from a registrar or one of their resellers / agents.

>
>>> Some requirements imposed by ICANN have no relevance in a country like
>>> India or Egypt.
>>
>> Then don’t use a gTLD domain name.
>
>Does this discussion sound like a flippant joke, Michele? If so, my 
>apologies, but I'm not laughing.

If you want to use domains that are available globally then you need to accept that there are global rules. 
Simply stating that you consider something (which you haven’t actually specified) as not being of relevance in a specific country does not mean anything.


>
>>> Where must arbitration under registry contracts with ICANN happen? Los
>>> Angeles County.
>>
>> Unless you are a registry that has signed a contract with ICANN why does that matter?
>
>I'm saying it matters for registries that have signed a contract with 
>ICANN, or are considering doing so.

If you were signing a contract with my company I’d expect it to be under Irish law.

There has been *some* discussion in the past of there being multiple jurisdictions available etc., etc., but that creates a whole other set of issues, as you’d end up with people venue shopping.
At least now we’re all bound by the same set of rules.

Regards

Michele