Re: [gtld-council] string criteria

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

> We don't need to create a 'large pseudo-bureaucracy', nor do we need to
> force these disputes into courts which could take years and surely would
> be a greater expense then predetermined ADR

I agree that courts do override ICANN.    Only question is which
courts that say "international principle" etc.  I am not a lawyer as well,
but know that the laws are not consistent everywhere.

It may also be worth pointing out here the possibilities of extending Mike's
statement
above to a full-bureaucracy when the case of IDNs is considered.

I would say that any disputes/complaints on IDN strings in the manner shown
above should in my opinion be arbitrated by a committee from within
that language community.   A suggestion could be that a selection committee
be convened
for each language community to select/issue IDN TLDs.  This same  community
be the arbiter of the
complaint in my opinion. Whatever the case it must be people from that
language community who decide.

The modalities can be state, countries where the particular language is used
in a significant way
and/ or official language (if its official then it still must be used by at
least 1% or something)
should be all candidate venues for a lawsuit, for example, Arabic is in at
least 22 countries,
so one can sue anyone if he/she wins in that country, then ICANN must follow
in that
country but not necessarily in the other 21 countries, challenge in
every country to win etc.


On 02/03/07, Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the question I'm asking myself is whether ICANN politically could ignore
> a court ruling on this subject no matter whether the court has authority
> over ICANN as a US company or not. A known ADR might keep them from
> finding out.
>
> Best,
>
> tom
>
> Am 02.03.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
> >
> > On 2-Mar-07, at 10:34 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> >
> > >We don't need to create a 'large pseudo-bureaucracy', nor do we
> > >need to
> > >force these disputes into courts which could take years and surely
> > >would
> > >be a greater expense then predetermined ADR.
> >
> > This would definitely be a fair option. My concern more relates to
> > ensuring that ICANN doesn't become a forum for hearing issues such as
> > these. If the intent is to put them through ADR, then I have no issue
> > with the proposal.
> >
> > Ross Rader
> > Director, Retail Services
> > t. 416.538.5492
> > c. 416.828.8783
> > http://www.domaindirect.com
> >
> > "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> > - Erik Nupponen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Gruss,
>
> tom
>
> (__)
> (OO)_____
> (oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
> | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
> w w w  w