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

Pranesh Prakash pranesh at cis-india.org
Tue Apr 26 15:48:55 UTC 2016

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2016-04-09 11:26:55 -0400]:
> 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.

"The rest of us" is a pretty big claim, McTim.  Do you have a poll?

In fact, the issue of jurisdiction (of ICANN, of the RMZ, of PTI, and of 
ICANN contracts) was raised in multiple submissions to the ICG in September.

Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter.

Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160426/6ddcf0eb/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the At-Large mailing list