<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM,
Robert Pollard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANjKdAi3pLsx8Ar1hePASw-uJECd0GdW37quokh+kEO-5LUHgA@mail.gmail.com"
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>
</body>
</html>