[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Apr 9 06:13:33 UTC 2016
On Saturday 09 April 2016 11:33 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
> you have not made any substantive points. You may have formulated some
> mildly interesting hypotheses but as we have seen, they have as
> foundations substantive - very substantive - misunderstandings.
that is your view... you are entitled to it. But I see you refusing to
respond to the clear questions that I raise, and take cover behind
technical jargon, as also below... Does not cut ice with me, or most of
others here I suppose.
> To your question: the web presence is not the gTLD and a gTLD does not
> necessarily entail a Web presence for any names registered under it
> (there are 65,534 ports that are not # 80.) And any action about the
> hypothetical gTLD would be directed to the company running the registry.
I have answered that question to Seun, the registry in case of closed
gTLDs that businesses take up for there own use is that business itself
and no point directing them to close their own gTLD.
> Do not forget to answer my substantive question on "quousque tandem
> [...] abutere patientia nostra."
Sorry, I do not understand the language you write it. I can answer
questions addressed to me in English
> Alejandro Pisanty
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> *Desde:* parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Enviado el:* sábado, 09 de abril de 2016 00:01
> *Hasta:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
> Seth M Reiss; 'McTim'
> *CC:* 'At-Large Worldwide'
> *Asunto:* Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away
> from the US government?
> On Saturday 09 April 2016 10:18 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
>> You say:
>> "And for a gTLD, the registry is ICANN.... A similar order will be
>> directed to ICANN is a gLTD has to be siezed."
>> No. ICANN is not a registry.
> Dear Alejandro
> US courts are not a subject of ICANN, it is the other way around....
> So courts are not going to observe the intricate niceties of ICANN's
> internal lingo..... gTLDs are directly controlled by ICANN, it can
> include and remove one from the operative list of gTLDs.... There is
> no other way to remove a gTLD... That alone counts, and the court will
> direct ICANN accordingly.... Just forget the ICANN jargon. Please
> respond to substantive points and issues.
> You havent responded to my substantive points, and are taking the
> cover of a jargon about which I care as little as a US court will..
> 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.
>> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large