McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> [2016-04-09 11:26:55 -0400]:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Should we then first agree (or not) on the substantive point that a business which does not want to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Us but still wants a gTLD for itself faces an insurmountable problem.
They face a binary decision. Do we sign a Registry Agreement, which contract is adjudicated under California law, or not.
You say that is a problem, the rest of us do not agree, seemingly.
"The rest of us" is a pretty big claim, McTim. Do you have a poll? In fact, the issue of jurisdiction (of ICANN, of the RMZ, of PTI, and of ICANN contracts) was raised in multiple submissions to the ICG in September. Maybe the ones who raised it don't matter. -- 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