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

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Sat Apr 9 15:26:55 UTC 2016

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a business
> which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the
> Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an insurmountable problem.

They face a binary decision.  Do we sign a Registry Agreement, which
contract is adjudicated under California law, or not.

You say that is a problem, the rest of us do not agree, seemingly.

 We do
> not have a solution to that problem. And this problem is not a peripheral
> one but goes to the heart of ICANN's main public function of providing
> domain name services, globally, hopefully in a fair and just way...
> Now for the treaty that could rid ICANN of this problem, you have come back
> to a very weak argument... time needed to do such a treaty

The main objection to your treaty plan is that the vast majority (my
opinion) of the ICANN community would not want this.  I don't think
you could convince nearly enough of the Community to support such a
plan.  You may get a few GAC Members, but politics is the art of the
possible.  After the last few years of IANA transition, there is IMHO,
zero appetite to even consider such a notion.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the At-Large mailing list