[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 19:41:33 UTC 2016

Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> [2016-04-26 
19:31:17 +0000]:
> 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?

Those specific bits that make the case the ICANN policy is hindering 
growth of registries and registrars in "underserved" regions.

>> Some requirements imposed by ICANN have no relevance in a country like
>> India or Egypt.
> Then don’t use a gTLD domain name.

Does this discussion sound like a flippant joke, Michele? If so, my 
apologies, but I'm not laughing.

>> 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?

I'm saying it matters for registries that have signed a contract with 
ICANN, or are considering doing so.

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/20160427/0b46b216/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the At-Large mailing list