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

[bzs at theworld.com]

On April 27, 2016 at 00:49 pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) wrote:
 > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> [2016-04-26 16:06:16 +0200]:
 > > relying on expensive court cases that might swing either way. But
 > > blaming ICANN for the fact that the majority of the Domain Name industry
 > > is located in the US is unfair. This is a free market world and the new
 > > gTLD process could have brought a myriad of applications from outside
 > > the US. But it did not. Is this really ICANN's fault?

One could imagine other business structures which are designed to be
more internationalized. ICANN has opened engagement and satellite
offices in Singapore, Istanbul, Beijing, etc. And rotates their main
conference around the globe.

Granted none of that suggests a specific solution but the issue of
i18n certainly flows in the blood of ICANN.

For example new gTLDs applicants could have been required to
demonstrate an int'l (multiple) legal presence or partnering.

That only seems ridiculous on the surface because the whole gTLD
program was more or less aimed at relatively low rent applicants
though several notable exceptions arose (Amazon, Google, investment
groups such as Donuts, M&M) who could have met such criteria.

And more outreach to potential applicants in nations which one assumes
had a dearth of applications due to the costs involved. Yes that seems
to contradict the previous paragraph but emphasis on "outreach",
special programs.

IMHO the new gTLD program was mostly designed of, by, and for the sort
of people and organizations who could raise a few hundred thousand
dollars and no more. Enough to keep out the riff-raff, but not so much
as to exclude those at the table.

 > 
 > 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
 > 
 > Some requirements imposed by ICANN have no relevance in a country like 
 > India or Egypt.
 > 
 > Where must arbitration under registry contracts with ICANN happen?  Los 
 > Angeles County.  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?

Those points also.

 > -- 
 > 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

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*