Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
All As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN's response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that -created-sucks-now-wants-government-to-keep-it-from-spinning-out-of-control/ ) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi's pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal). I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions - but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>
Paul, Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”? If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for. Steve On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key <image002.jpg>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My bad and poor writing. I actually meant the exact opposite - i.e. that I think we all wish that ICANN continue to NOT have regulatory authority. Apologies to all for the lack of clarity. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015> From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Esq Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability Paul, Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, "We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority"? If so, that's a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for. Steve On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: All As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN's response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that -created-sucks-now-wants-government-to-keep-it-from-spinning-out-of-control/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that- created-sucks-now-wants-government-to-keep-it-from-spinning-out-of-control/) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi's pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal). I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions - but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015> <image002.jpg> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Paul, that is a new twist to "be careful what you wish for...." :-) Greg On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
My bad and poor writing. I actually meant the exact opposite – i.e. that I think we all wish that ICANN continue to NOT have regulatory authority. Apologies to all for the lack of clarity.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
*From:* Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig Esq *Cc:* Stephen D. Crocker; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All, Back to the .sucks. I have a question. If ICANN is not regulatory and the registrant feels cheated if within 2 years the price changes to peanuts, can ICANN interfere if requested to handle the issue ? Can a government feel insulted to ban the use of this gTLD against its geographic names and sue the registrar? Can a company sue for defamation of character ? A scenario. A website with a name like usa.suks or china.sucks or icann sucks comes up. Someone feels bad and takes a negative action. What would be ICANN roles ? Curious for a response with direction. -Akinbo. On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul, that is a new twist to "be careful what you wish for...." :-)
Greg
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
My bad and poor writing. I actually meant the exact opposite – i.e. that I think we all wish that ICANN continue to NOT have regulatory authority. Apologies to all for the lack of clarity.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
*From:* Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig Esq *Cc:* Stephen D. Crocker; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Akinbo - ICANN’s role in relation to any gTLD registry is over the enforcement of the registry’s contract with ICANN. In your question below, ICANN would typically only get involved if there was a complaint that the registry was violating the terms of its agreement with ICANN. The agreements for the gTLDs delegated through the New gTLD Program do not include any terms relating to minimum or maximum prices for registrations; ICANN similarly does not have contractual terms on the pricing practices of its accredited registrars. The ability for registered name holders to be sued for the content they have on their website is also not something that ICANN has a say in. There are, however, avenues that are made available, such as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process, a policy developed by the ICANN community (though ICANN is not a party to UDRP proceedings) as well as some of the other resolution processes that were developed within the New gTLD Program that could be applicable to particular types of complaints or disputes. Best, Samantha From: Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo@nira.org.ng<mailto:akinbo@nira.org.ng>> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 4:16 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability All, Back to the .sucks. I have a question. If ICANN is not regulatory and the registrant feels cheated if within 2 years the price changes to peanuts, can ICANN interfere if requested to handle the issue ? Can a government feel insulted to ban the use of this gTLD against its geographic names and sue the registrar? Can a company sue for defamation of character ? A scenario. A website with a name like usa.suks or china.sucks or icann sucks comes up. Someone feels bad and takes a negative action. What would be ICANN roles ? Curious for a response with direction. -Akinbo. On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, that is a new twist to "be careful what you wish for...." :-) Greg On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: My bad and poor writing. I actually meant the exact opposite – i.e. that I think we all wish that ICANN continue to NOT have regulatory authority. Apologies to all for the lack of clarity. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> [cid:image001.jpg@01D076C5.1B806AA0]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Esq Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability Paul, Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”? If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for. Steve On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: All As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal). I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image002.jpg><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Great answer Samantha, I think pricing is subject to market forces, it is a tricky area to enforce controls whether through regulatory means or otherwise. Regards On Apr 15, 2015 3:36 AM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Akinbo -
ICANN’s role in relation to any gTLD registry is over the enforcement of the registry’s contract with ICANN. In your question below, ICANN would typically only get involved if there was a complaint that the registry was violating the terms of its agreement with ICANN. The agreements for the gTLDs delegated through the New gTLD Program do not include any terms relating to minimum or maximum prices for registrations; ICANN similarly does not have contractual terms on the pricing practices of its accredited registrars. The ability for registered name holders to be sued for the content they have on their website is also not something that ICANN has a say in. There are, however, avenues that are made available, such as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process, a policy developed by the ICANN community (though ICANN is not a party to UDRP proceedings) as well as some of the other resolution processes that were developed within the New gTLD Program that could be applicable to particular types of complaints or disputes.
Best,
Samantha
From: Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo@nira.org.ng> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 4:16 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
All, Back to the .sucks.
I have a question. If ICANN is not regulatory and the registrant feels cheated if within 2 years the price changes to peanuts, can ICANN interfere if requested to handle the issue ? Can a government feel insulted to ban the use of this gTLD against its geographic names and sue the registrar? Can a company sue for defamation of character ?
A scenario. A website with a name like usa.suks or china.sucks or icann sucks comes up. Someone feels bad and takes a negative action. What would be ICANN roles ?
Curious for a response with direction. -Akinbo.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul, that is a new twist to "be careful what you wish for...." :-)
Greg
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
My bad and poor writing. I actually meant the exact opposite – i.e. that I think we all wish that ICANN continue to NOT have regulatory authority. Apologies to all for the lack of clarity.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
*From:* Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig Esq *Cc:* Stephen D. Crocker; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the moment may indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that may result to Paul's concern of jurisdiction in near future. An example is the requirement imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on GAC's advice). While this is not about pricing; censoring who gets a domain by professional qualification will sure create some variation globally. Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this (policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be considered by the ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't act on a unilateral decision of a section of the community without consultation. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
An article on this issue: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150414_icann_dot_wtf_ftc_oca_asked_whether_s... Best Jorge Cancio Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Seun Ojedeji Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2015 07:26 An: Steve Crocker Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the moment may indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that may result to Paul's concern of jurisdiction in near future. An example is the requirement imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on GAC's advice). While this is not about pricing; censoring who gets a domain by professional qualification will sure create some variation globally. Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this (policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be considered by the ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't act on a unilateral decision of a section of the community without consultation. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> wrote: Paul, Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”? If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for. Steve On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: All As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal). I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image002.jpg><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
And some VERY interesting results for the google search: .sucks site:.icann.org el On 2015-04-15 08:32, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
An article on this issue: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150414_icann_dot_wtf_ftc_oca_asked_whether_s...
Best
Jorge Cancio
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
They are not on their whois,nic.sucks, but dig sidley-austin.sucks ANY IN reveals (and DNSSEC records removed for brevity) [...] sidley-austin.sucks. 3599 IN SRV 10 10 0 your-dns-needs-immediate-attention.sucks. sidley-austin.sucks. 3599 IN TXT "Your DNS configuration needs immediate attention see https://icann.org/namecollision" sidley-austin.sucks. 3599 IN MX 10 your-dns-needs-immediate-attention.sucks. sidley-austin.sucks. 3599 IN A 127.0.53.53 So someone want to ask our advisers the question? ROTFLPIMPHMSBAH greetings, el On 2015-04-15 11:34, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
And some VERY interesting results for the google search:
.sucks site:.icann.org
el
On 2015-04-15 08:32, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
An article on this issue: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150414_icann_dot_wtf_ftc_oca_asked_whether_s...
Best
Jorge Cancio
[...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi, Just for reference, the specific .doctor case i was referring can be found below: A view: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/ Board action: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-bri... Regards On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 8:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
An article on this issue: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150414_icann_dot_wtf_ftc_oca_asked_whether_s...
Best
Jorge Cancio
*Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Seun Ojedeji *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 15. April 2015 07:26 *An:* Steve Crocker *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the moment may indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that may result to Paul's concern of jurisdiction in near future. An example is the requirement imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on GAC's advice). While this is not about pricing; censoring who gets a domain by professional qualification will sure create some variation globally.
Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this (policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be considered by the ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't act on a unilateral decision of a section of the community without consultation.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Maybe the approach being used by .NGO to clarify whether registrants are legitimate NGO's could suffice in this case?, i don't see ICANN's role though. Regards On 4/15/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the moment may indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that may result to Paul's concern of jurisdiction in near future. An example is the requirement imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on GAC's advice). While this is not about pricing; censoring who gets a domain by professional qualification will sure create some variation globally.
Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this (policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be considered by the ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't act on a unilateral decision of a section of the community without consultation.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
To be honest, the point fits nicely into the current discussion. ICANN was not rushed into the decision to allow .SUCKS and there was an involved process and there was sufficient time to object against .SUCKS through several fora. Now I don't know if someone objected citing the fear of this just being the vehicle for abusive registrations that it seems to be, and ICANN rejected, but if that had been the case we could even look at this from an accountability perspective. But if not, now that it's done it is done. And, to be honest, all the more kudos for someone to come up with a successful business model. Even though I would have not done this even if I could have. There have been ICANN discussions about content in the past (.XXX anyone?) and you do not want to go there, trust me. And so what if someone registers putyournamehere.SUCKS? You could pursue a UDRP or even much cheaper ask Google under the European privacy rules to block it from their searches. It does support my point of looking at these things carefully, though. greetings, el On 2015-04-15 10:25, Barrack Otieno wrote:
Maybe the approach being used by .NGO to clarify whether registrants are legitimate NGO's could suffice in this case?, i don't see ICANN's role though.
Regards
On 4/15/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Definitely not a wish to wish for. That said, ICANN at the moment may indeed be entering into some regulatory issues that may result to Paul's concern of jurisdiction in near future. An example is the requirement imposed by ICANN on .doctor(based on GAC's advice). While this is not about pricing; censoring who gets a domain by professional qualification will sure create some variation globally.
Although I should note that I think a WG may be looking at this (policy-implementation WG), whether it's something to be considered by the ccwg especially towards ensuring board doesn't act on a unilateral decision of a section of the community without consultation.
Regards [...] On 14 Apr 2015 18:48, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Paul,
Did you actually say, rephrasing for clarity, “We all will continue to wish for ICANN to have regulatory authority”?
If so, that’s a very strong statement, whose implication is probably not fully understood by everyone and, when understood, may not at all be what everyone wishes for.
Steve
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Interesting On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN’s response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that-...) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi’s pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal).
I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions – but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
Link to my PGP Key
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=14cb906fefca15b6&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
-- WISDOM DONKOR Sosftware / Network Engineer Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: wisdom_dk@hotmail.com wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh wisdom.dk@gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
participants (10)
-
Adebunmi AKINBO -
Barrack Otieno -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Samantha Eisner -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve Crocker -
Wisdom Donkor