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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Apr 9 05:52:55 UTC 2016

On Saturday 09 April 2016 10:57 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> snip
> SO: Not Alejandro but I would say in theory that such order may go to
> the registry first
I must again make it clear...I am talking about businesses owning their
own gTLD, in which case the concerned business, say rojadirecta or
'sunpharma', taking from examples I have used, would be its own
registry.... And these will be based outside the US. Since these, in
principle, are the 'offending businesses' not subjecting themselves to
US jurisdictional orders, there is indeed no point in sending a court
order to the concerned business (which is also its registry for its own
closed gTLD) to close down its own gLTD... Why would it do such a thing?

> but could also go to ICANN

Yes, therefore, the order can only plausibly go to ICANN, which has the
means to completely remove the whole gTLD (and with precision, nothing
other than the gTLD)... A court directs its orders to all or any agency
under its jurisdiction which has means to carry it out...
> 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)
Dear Seun, court orders are court order, and so are of the other
empowered  US agencies (those which have been seizing domain names)...
They cannot not be complied with. ICANN officials can be arrested if
they are not... Yes, you could contest them (although in some case the
contest may only follow interim observance of orders) but then only if
you succeed can you not carry out the orders. If you do not, you simply
obey them. We are talking of that very likely eventuality.  Just bec you
have a legal team, and maybe an expensive one at that, does not means
you necessarily win all your cases. it would be such a travesty of
justice if this were to be the case... How can you/ we go by the
supposition that ICANN will necessarily win all its challenges, always,
especially when there is a long history in the US of domain names
siezures, and the law remains the same as it always was....... That is
very thin grounds for us to build and sustain a global governance system
like ICANN.

> 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?

I dont see ICANN receiving orders unless it just have to.... and it does
not have to, in case of non US jurisdictions.

> Will ICANN not receive an order if it's based on treaties?

Yes, of course....One of the main purposes of such a treaty would be to
earn for ICANN immunity from host country jurisdiction. All treaty based
international organisations have that..

> 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
> <mailto: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/a7d89ff5/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list