Rec on choice of law
Hi all, sorry I could only join part of the call today. Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option, an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine. Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and they did not move forward because of the US contracts. Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the risk of getting breach notices by ICANN. Best, Thomas
Thomas, The short answer to your question is that we would love to have fairly presented "advantages" and "disadvantages" for each option. We can definitely add (initially, as suggested language) the advantages you mentioned previously. Was that on the call or in an earlier email? Thanks, Greg On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, sorry I could only join part of the call today.
Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option, an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine.
Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and they did not move forward because of the US contracts.
Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the risk of getting breach notices by ICANN.
Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
+1 Jorge ________________________________ Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Datum: 4. Oktober 2017 um 22:09:24 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law Hi all, sorry I could only join part of the call today. Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option, an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine. Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and they did not move forward because of the US contracts. Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the risk of getting breach notices by ICANN. Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Thomas, That is certainly possible. I did myself develop disadvantages to a certain extent for some options, but the point was not to make some options appear more or less disadvantageous or to disregard some participants' input. It's more that I did a pass on disadvantages generally speaking. Looking back at the document, there is certainly more to be said on the advantages indeed. In that sense, I would echo Greg's question. Besides, this being a collective work, I obviously invite everyone to jump in and add their grain of salt, their 2c, or whatever else suits them. Best, 2017-10-04 23:55 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
+1 Jorge
________________________________
Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Datum: 4. Oktober 2017 um 22:09:24 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law
Hi all, sorry I could only join part of the call today.
Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option, an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine.
Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and they did not move forward because of the US contracts.
Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the risk of getting breach notices by ICANN.
Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
And Thomas thank you as well for that additional concrete input in this email re CENTR's take on the issue and on the data waiver. I am sure this can find its way in the draft somewhere in any case. Best, 2017-10-05 0:02 GMT+02:00 Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr>:
Dear Thomas,
That is certainly possible. I did myself develop disadvantages to a certain extent for some options, but the point was not to make some options appear more or less disadvantageous or to disregard some participants' input. It's more that I did a pass on disadvantages generally speaking. Looking back at the document, there is certainly more to be said on the advantages indeed. In that sense, I would echo Greg's question.
Besides, this being a collective work, I obviously invite everyone to jump in and add their grain of salt, their 2c, or whatever else suits them.
Best,
2017-10-04 23:55 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
+1 Jorge
________________________________
Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Datum: 4. Oktober 2017 um 22:09:24 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law
Hi all, sorry I could only join part of the call today.
Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option, an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine.
Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and they did not move forward because of the US contracts.
Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the risk of getting breach notices by ICANN.
Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
Hi Raphael, I just did not yet get around to going to the recording of the meeting. Had the group decided to present the alternatives as they are in the report, I would have been fine with that. I will deliver a few lines of text that can be considered, so I perfectly agree this is collective work. Best, Thomas
Am 05.10.2017 um 00:02 schrieb Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr>:
Dear Thomas,
That is certainly possible. I did myself develop disadvantages to a certain extent for some options, but the point was not to make some options appear more or less disadvantageous or to disregard some participants' input. It's more that I did a pass on disadvantages generally speaking. Looking back at the document, there is certainly more to be said on the advantages indeed. In that sense, I would echo Greg's question.
Besides, this being a collective work, I obviously invite everyone to jump in and add their grain of salt, their 2c, or whatever else suits them.
Best,
2017-10-04 23:55 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: +1 Jorge
________________________________
Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Datum: 4. Oktober 2017 um 22:09:24 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Rec on choice of law
Hi all, sorry I could only join part of the call today.
Reading the recommendation on choice of law it strikes me odd that for most options disadvantages are explained. Only for the „status quo“ option, an avantage is mentioned. If the group has chosen not to add the advantages I mentioned on the menu option, that is fine.
Only today I spoke to a company rep at the CENTR meeting in Brussels and mentioned where we stand with the discussion and what I heard is that they had a few interested parties from the Middle East for gTLD applications and they did not move forward because of the US contracts.
Also, being presented with US legal concepts and contracts based on US law leads to the situation where non-US companies have to ask ICANN for permission to be compliant with their local laws. We have that with Data Retention Waiver requests for registers, the Whois exemption procedure and now with the whole GDPR debate (which I know is broader). I have gone through that on behalf of clients and can tell you that the Data Retention Waiver processes were costly, took a long time and required substantial debate with ICANN’s lawyers. That is not really acceptable and should be changed. A menu option helps with that. Let’s remember, applicants for these waivers were not asking for any privileges other than the privilege of being permitted to be compliant with their local laws and not run the risk of getting breach notices by ICANN.
Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (4)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX -
Thomas Rickert