RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

ICANN has an agreement with each Registry Operator, and an agreement
with each Accredited Registrar. These two agreements use ICANN's
jurisdiction/choice of law - Los Angeles, California, USA. 

There is also a separate agreement between the Registry Operator and
each Accredited Registrar that signs up with that Registry Operator. The
jurisdiction/choice of law is that of the Registry Operator.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
From: "Austin, Scott" <SAustin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 21, 2010 1:37 pm
To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@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 
 

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] 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.