[governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs

[Lee W McKnight]

Recalling I am not a lawyer but play one on the Internet:

Amending Milton's statement:

If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN’s decision to award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, (or anywhere) then an adverse decision in a U.S., (Belgian or Australian court) (c)ould make European or Indian law “applicable” to an ICANN decision.

(Not that I am encouraging lawsuits. But with offices in Brussels and Sydney listed as ICANN contact locations, not to mention staffers elsewhere, then ICANN is subject to other national legal regimes already.  Certainly the EU has not been shy about enforcing competition policy actions on US HQ'd companies, in European courts. Even if in theory US courts and Department of Justice should get first crack at ICANN when anti-competitive actions are alleged.)

Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will not go anywhere.

(Of course, not only the present case, but the merits under any legal regime of a hypothetical suit is beyond my forecasting powers.
But not Milton's. ; ) +2 Lee

This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states’ territorial jurisdiction exerting control over the internet.

+2

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: parminder; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs



On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

Actually, Parminder you are confusing different things.

If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN’s decision to award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, and ICM Registry were domiciled in Europe or India, respectively, then an adverse decision would make European or Indian law “applicable” to an ICANN decision.

This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states’ territorial jursidcition exerting control over the internet.

+1


Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will not go anywhere.

that sums it up nicely.


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120823/24f5fbe0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t