[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Fri Jun 27 10:22:57 UTC 2014
Beyond the issues of this case, a question arises of whether the real
issue is the locus of the incorporation or the applicable law. There are
ways to consider how to differentiate between the two.
On 6/27/2014 6:04 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> - the double posting for real this time.
> I'm sorry Parminder, but this case has nothing to do with the point
> you are making. The court - and the plaintiff's solicitor - simply
> don't understand that a ccTLD and ICANN don't exchange money, ICANN
> doesn't license them or anything of the sort. This is a
> non-enforceable judgment based upon flawed information at a very
> fundamental level.
> On 27 Jun 2014, at 11:53, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> Many of us have been saying for years now that ICANN as a global
>> governance body is simply not sustainable to remain under US
>> jurisdiction, and must be incorporated under international law with
>> host country immunities.... And we have said a thousand times that it
>> is not just the issue of what the US executive decides, but also what
>> any court in US could decide any day on any issue, which could
>> unravel the whole structure and its plausibility.... Sorry for the 'I
>> told you so' sentiment, but well, we need to wake up. Even now....
>> On Friday 27 June 2014 02:54 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:22 AM, michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For those not following on NANOG:
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss