RE: [soac-mapo] Possible ICANN liability

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me that this scenario is one for the ICANN legal team to
deal with.  I think it is good that it was raised but not sure this
group can do much about it.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:39 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Possible ICANN liability
> 
> 
> I hope your first sentence answer is correct, but that was not the
> issue I was raising. The scenario is you are running .objectionable
> but when you go belly-up, ICANN takes it over (at least in the
> interim) and ICANN is now the proprietor of .objectionable. And some
> US district attorney decides that ICANN is now responsible for the
> insidious behaviour associated with that tld.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 31/08/2010 03:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >Absolutely no legal basis for this that I can see. And it could be
> >easily addressed through the registry contract. ICANN makes no
> >warrants that any applicant will succeed in their business.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:25 PM
> > > To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Possible ICANN liability
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a question that I don't think has been addressed before.
> > >
> > > Some of the scenarios that are being discussed would allow
possibly
> > > "objectionable" names to go into the root, and be blocked by
> various
> > > authorities if they felt it appropriate.
> > >
> > > In cases such as these, would ICANN have any liability if the
> > > registry should ultimately fail and ICANN ends up being the de
> facto
> > > custodian of the TLD until it can be re-delegated or shut down.
> > > Specifically, ICANN operates in a jurisdiction the might allow
some
> > > sort of lawsuit that the original operator, because of where they
> > > were situated, would not have been subject to.
> > >
> > > Alan