Parminder,

you have not made any substantive points. You may have formulated some mildly interesting hypotheses but as we have seen, they have as foundations substantive - very substantive - misunderstandings.

To your question: the web presence is not the gTLD and a gTLD does not necessarily entail a Web presence for any names registered under it (there are 65,534 ports that are not # 80.) And any action about the hypothetical gTLD would be directed to the company running the registry.

Do not forget to answer my substantive question on "quousque tandem [...] abutere patientia nostra."

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM

Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desde: parminder [parminder@itforchange.net]
Enviado el: sábado, 09 de abril de 2016 00:01
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Seth M Reiss; 'McTim'
CC: 'At-Large Worldwide'
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?

On Saturday 09 April 2016 10:18 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:

Parminder,
You say:

"And for a gTLD, the registry is ICANN.... A similar order will be directed to ICANN is a gLTD has to be siezed."

No. ICANN is not a registry.

Dear Alejandro

US courts are not a subject of ICANN, it is the other way around.... So courts are not going to observe the intricate niceties of ICANN's internal lingo..... gTLDs are directly controlled by ICANN, it can include and remove one from the operative list of gTLDs.... There is no other way to remove a gTLD... That alone counts, and the court will direct ICANN accordingly.... Just forget the ICANN jargon. Please respond to substantive points and issues.

You havent responded to my substantive points, and are taking the cover of a jargon about which I care as little as a US court will.. The substantive point it; is to proceed from an existing case, rojadirecta had taken a gTLD, it were .rojadirecta (or for wikipedia's case .wikipedia), and the same case had come to the same US court, where would its order to take down the web presence of the respective businesses be directed? Would you care to respond to this point? Thanks.

parminder

This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this statement will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the statement.)

Alejandro Pisanty

<message tail snipped>