[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 15:56:53 UTC 2016
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 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>
>>> Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a
>>> which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of
>>> 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?
See the # of folks who do not agree with you on this list.
> 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.
It is not that they don't matter, it is that it wasn't deemed to be
suffiiciently important to take up at the time (or was going to be big
a lift at that moment).
"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