[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
michele at blacknight.com
Tue Apr 26 19:31:17 UTC 2016
On 26/04/2016, 20:19, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>In part, yes. Please look at the comments that CIS and other submitted
>to this:
>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/dns-underserved-2014-05-14-en
Which bits specifically?
>
>Some requirements imposed by ICANN have no relevance in a country like
>India or Egypt.
Then don’t use a gTLD domain name.
>
>Where must arbitration under registry contracts with ICANN happen? Los
>Angeles County.
Unless you are a registry that has signed a contract with ICANN why does that matter?
> Which is the exclusive venue for contractual litigation
>against ICANN by registries? . Los Angeles County.
>
>Surely you're not arguing that it is "natural" that U.S. companies
>continue to dominate in this area and that ICANN policy has nothing to
>do with it? Do you think the .com contract will ever be opened up for
>competitive bidding?
>
>--
>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
>https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
More information about the At-Large
mailing list