Another UN for the Internet ?
- To: <settlement-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Another UN for the Internet ?
- From: "chris kwan" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:35:23 +1100
a.. The agreement includes compulsory arbitration using the ICC
(International Chamber of Commerce) in Paris, which is appropriate for an
international organization such as ICANN.
I disagree, it is the nominated jurisdiction agreed to in the arbitration
agreement (which you have not stated) that is important. BTW, depending on
the arbitration agreement itself, lawyers could still be used which means
you will always need to expense this in. Furthermore, it is well known that
are methods to get around the arbitration process and appeal on the point of
law later should the arbitrator inadverterly make some legal findings as
opposed to factual. It would be better if you put up the arbitration
agreement as well to increase transparency, perhaps there are some pro-bono
lawyers out there who can give some feedback.
Obviously any price increase is of no help at all and totally fanciful. The
internet was created because people wanted to connect with each other both
in peace and war time. Now we have to pay a toll which was actually an after
thought by some guys in blue suits. To sanction this, we should be so crazy.
If this yearly 'toll' money actually goes to some good which we have yet to
see over the last few years, then perhaps it is justifiable but to date, I
could not name one significant item here other than having to pay expensive
executives to hire even more expensive lawyers to settle disputable
agreements which should not have been entered in the first place if not for
the expensive executives. Sounds like we are creating another UN in a