RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- To: "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- From: "Austin, Scott" <SAustin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:00:42 -0400
That question of jurisdiction and competing jurisdictions has been raised
before, and no answer had been given that I am aware of. It also raises the
question whether registry and registrar agreements with ICANN will have choice
of law and exclusive jurisdiction provisions and what parameters exist for
determining the jurisdictional options to be selected from to fill in the
blanks in those provisions. For example, because of ICANN's relationship to US
law is US as controlling law always an option, or are the contracting parties'
respective nation-states the limit; are party state tribunals a given or is a
neutral non-US tribunal the default choice for the settlement of disputes, such
as one that handles international issues (WIPO in Geneva, International courts
in The Hague and perhaps others in Asia that are better known or more
acceptable to practioners there). The international aspect of the TLDs may make
dispute resolution a much greater challenge if remote jurisdictions are asked
to decide questions that adversely impact one or more of the registry/registrar
parties' established national economic or political interests. Whether
recognized political enemies will be forced to use each others registrars to
establish or maintain a registry which seeks to remain culturally (or legally)
insulated may also need to be taken into consideration. Perhaps it is
understood these issues fall within the exceptions in some of the proposals,
but it would be nice to see that articulated by their proponents.
Scott R. Austin
Roetzel & Andress, P.A.
350 Las Olas Boulevard
Las Olas Centre II, Suite 1150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Direct Phone No.: 954-759-2768
Main Phone No: 954-462-4150
Fax No.: 954-462-4260
Both Scott R. Austin and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used
exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of
the original message and notify Scott Austin immediately at 954.759.2768. Thank
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:19 AM
To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
What would happen if the two national competition authorities made differing
On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2010, at 18:17, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>>> That said, I don't know what would stop an applicant from
>>> incorporating in a jurisdiction where competition authorities are known to
>>> be extremely liberal, or non-existent.
>> Which is what anyone who wanted to "game" a system would do.
> One of the thoughts that I had on that was that since ICANN is incorporated
> in the US, the US competition authorities would always end up being
> consulted as well as any local ones.
Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment
hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1)
avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or
(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or
matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S.
Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.