<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
Sala, <br>
<br>
You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's decision....
I have no view on this particular decision of ICANN to have a .xxx
gtld. I am speaking about applicability of the jurisdiction of US
courts on all ICANN decisions. And since US courts apply US law,
it is the applicability of US laws over all ICANN decisions, which
is also called 'oversight'. And I dont like anything that calls
itself a global system/ infrastructure to be subject to laws that
I do not have an opportunity to participate in making. Simple
democratic principle. No legislation without representation.......<br>
<br>
The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is quite beside
the point.... But then if you have to pursue that line, US has
some of the worst IP laws, but still when an IP issue vis a vis
any ICANN decision comes up for judicial review, it will still be
the same US courts and US law, and not Brazilian courts and
law.....<br>
<br>
Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified.... parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM,
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJwbTiD+Qi9O5CC7qTZj2pxEtS96ZvUQoGrOQ+LKkaxeZ3EBNQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">My personal views are if anything I would say that the
situation proves that the system works. It means that decisions
can be subject to scrutiny. Having personally seen voluntary
scrutiny take place within ICANN and now seeing decisions being
checked by the legal system it shows that the organisation is
answerable.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of
antitrust laws in the world and standards for corporate
governance rate as among the highest if not the highest. This
should inspire confidence that decisions can be checked. For
ICANN it means an internal self evaluation and ongoing
assessment to ensure that they perform their obligations to the
highest standards.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Organisations all over the world, governments included
continue to learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You
pick up and learn and move on. It does not mean that all your
actions are going to be flawless - show me one perfect
organisation and I will show you Utopia. Of course that does not
mean that we do not strive for excellent<br>
<div> standards.</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font
face="Verdana"><br>
This is a very important, and possibly a historic,
news, which exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's
claim of independence from the US establishment.<br>
<br>
A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust
filing against ICANN decision instituting the .xxx
gtld . There is every likelihood that this decision of
ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What
would ICANN do in that case? At the very least, it is
quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain
new provisions in its registry agreement regarding
.xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would
be ICANN's response in that case?<br>
<br>
Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to
similar review by US courts.<br>
<br>
ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed
status as a global organisation responsible only to
the global community, a claim which in any case had
feet of clay....<br>
<br>
And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above
ground have lost a major battle. I hope such
defendants on the list will respond to this news and
the paradox it poses.<br>
<br>
It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial
review (which of course it always was), and that its
decisions can be struck down by US courts, in which
case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse
its decisions. For those who have expressed lack of
clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is
oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial
review which is a part of overall oversight.<span
class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font></span></font>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert
Pollard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Salanieta<br>
<br>
Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting
your message with a new subject line, as the issue
would seem to deserve a separate thread from "new
gTLDs".<br>
<br>
Although the suit may have some implications for
new gTLDs, many of the allegations re antitrust
issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the
particular history of the establishment of .xxx
and the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining
control of it<br>
<br clear="all">
Robert <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at
6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com"
target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748"
target="_blank">http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748</a></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf"
target="_blank">http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf</a></span>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div>
<div>P.O. Box 17862</div>
<div>Suva</div>
<div>Fiji</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Twitter: @SalanietaT</div>
<div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#222222"><span
style="line-height:16px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>