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>