On April 27, 2016 at 00:49 pranesh@cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) wrote:
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> [2016-04-26 16:06:16 +0200]:
relying on expensive court cases that might swing either way. But blaming ICANN for the fact that the majority of the Domain Name industry is located in the US is unfair. This is a free market world and the new gTLD process could have brought a myriad of applications from outside the US. But it did not. Is this really ICANN's fault?
One could imagine other business structures which are designed to be more internationalized. ICANN has opened engagement and satellite offices in Singapore, Istanbul, Beijing, etc. And rotates their main conference around the globe. Granted none of that suggests a specific solution but the issue of i18n certainly flows in the blood of ICANN. For example new gTLDs applicants could have been required to demonstrate an int'l (multiple) legal presence or partnering. That only seems ridiculous on the surface because the whole gTLD program was more or less aimed at relatively low rent applicants though several notable exceptions arose (Amazon, Google, investment groups such as Donuts, M&M) who could have met such criteria. And more outreach to potential applicants in nations which one assumes had a dearth of applications due to the costs involved. Yes that seems to contradict the previous paragraph but emphasis on "outreach", special programs. IMHO the new gTLD program was mostly designed of, by, and for the sort of people and organizations who could raise a few hundred thousand dollars and no more. Enough to keep out the riff-raff, but not so much as to exclude those at the table.
In part, yes. Please look at the comments that CIS and other submitted to this: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/dns-underserved-2014-05-14-en
Some requirements imposed by ICANN have no relevance in a country like India or Egypt.
Where must arbitration under registry contracts with ICANN happen? Los Angeles County. Which is the exclusive venue for contractual litigation against ICANN by registries? . Los Angeles County.
Surely you're not arguing that it is "natural" that U.S. companies continue to dominate in this area and that ICANN policy has nothing to do with it? Do you think the .com contract will ever be opened up for competitive bidding?
Those points also.
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*