[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 15:23:48 UTC 2016
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> What amazes me in all the responses I am getting is that no one is either
> saying that the problem I have posed does not exist or it is not important
> to resolve, nor providing any alternative ways to resolve it.
> They are just arguing with parts of my proposal, which is fine, although I
> think, while no doubt this is a somewhat complex solution to a complex
> problem, no one has been able to show why it really cant work.
> To remind; the problem I had posed was about the very likely wrongful US's
> jurisdictional imposition on ICANN's process and vis a vis the root server
> maintainer. I had given a concrete example; of a US court pushing the
> well-known over-zealous US intellectual property law and enforcement to
> take away the gTLD of an Indian generic drug manufacturer even when the
> latter has no direct business interests or activities in the US... What is
> your response to such a very likely occurrence?
It is highly unlikely, the likelihood approaching zero IMHO.
> Should we simply ignore it?
yes, it is safe to do so. However, you must realise that after the IANA
transition is finished, there will be absolutely zero appetite inside ICANN
to make major reforms. I doubt you could get that Community to even
consider such a proposal.
> Or, do you not think it likely, in which case lets discuss that
If we must. Let's say that your scenario comes to pass. You do realise
that ICANN would use the hundreds of millions of dollars in its legal kitty
to fight such a court order, right?
> .... You cannot simply not respond to this key global governance problem
> that stares us in the face... (Apart from it, is the less likely but still
> to be remained prepared for possibility of the The Office of Foreign Assets
> Control of the US playing hanky panky with the gTLD of a country
countries don't have gTLDs.
> that the US gets into serious enmity with.... every country likes to
> remain prepared for such an eventuality. You cannot deny them that right.
> No one seems to want to address these key global governance problems. Do
> they not exist? If they do, then what is your response to and preparedness
> for these?
They are not key. They exist as a problem largely in your head.
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large