RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

["Austin, Scott" <SAustin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina:
 
I am sure they do have the provisions, but what determines the scope of
the available jurisdictions to fill in the provisions, and would the
same rules apply to new registries that may be solely dedicated to
registrants within one country, but not a corporate brand single
registrant registry. .bangkok is an exanple that was raised in an
earlier post. Should we expect disputes with its registrars will be
resolved in the Easter District of Virginia? Or conversely, could the
owner of such a new TLD force ICANN to litigate control or contract or
accreditation issues or accept a judgment from litigation in a remote
"friendly" forum, or a forum chosen for gaming the system such as a
remote asset protection haven with short S/Ls like Vanuatu or the Cook
Islands.  
 
Scott
 

Scott R. Austin 
Roetzel & Andress
Email:  saustin@xxxxxxxxx

  
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 216.870.7954.  Thank you.

 

________________________________

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Austin, Scott
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities


Scott,
 
The agreements (including the proposed ones) do have jurisdiction and
choice of law provisions. 
 
K


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Austin, Scott
        Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:01 PM
        To: Richard Tindal; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
        
        

        Richard: 

        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 



          
        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
        Email: saustin@xxxxxxxxx
        www.ralaw.com
<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/saustin/Application%20Data/Micros
oft/Signatures/www.ralaw.com>  
          
        
        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 you.




        -----Original Message----- 
        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [
mailto: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 


        Avri, 

        What would happen if the two national competition authorities
made differing judgments? 

        RT 


        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.  

        > 
        > a. 
        > 
        > 





        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.