<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 9 Apr 2016 6:03 a.m., "parminder" <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 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. <br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">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)</p>
<p dir="ltr">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?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
> parminder <br>
><br>
>> 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.)<br>
>><br>
>> Alejandro Pisanty<br>
>><br>
>> <message tail snipped><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> At-Large mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
><br>
> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
</p>