On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>
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. We do
not have a solution to that problem. And this problem is not a peripheral one but goes to the heart of ICANN's main public function of providing domain name services, globally, hopefully in a fair and just way...
Now for the treaty that could rid ICANN of this problem, you have come back to a very weak argument... time needed to do such a treaty
The main objection to your treaty plan is that the vast majority (my opinion) of the ICANN community would not want this. I don't think you could convince nearly enough of the Community to support such a plan. You may get a few GAC Members, but politics is the art of the possible. After the last few years of IANA transition, there is IMHO, zero appetite to even consider such a notion. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel