have been working on the premise that
ICANN (incorporated as a nonprofit company in California)
subject to litigation
in the countries where it has the
- Republic of Korea
We believe it would be useful for us to know whether jurisdiction
civil, criminal, do we care
litigation could be maintained elsewhere.
There are generally three aspects to our interest.
First, there are c
ountries other than th
above where ICANN employees reside and
from home” for the most part –
being paid by ICANN in the employee’s local currency
Is this correct?
Also, is ICANN ‘registered’ anywhere else than where it has an office?
Second are c
ountries where ICANN has
like those above
but has held one or more
ICANN 57 in Hyderabad, India)
which are significant to ICANN’s multistakeholder operations.
And then there are c
ountries where ICANN
physical presence at all.
We note that in its Articles of Incorporation ICANN states, among other things, that it shall promote the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet and that it will operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law.
And we note that in its
We generally understand that in many places jurisdiction for litigation is premised on physical presence in some manner. But we wonder whether in the digital age the concept of “targeting” can be used as a basis for litigation jurisdiction.
In other words we wonder whether a party, based where ICANN has no office, could successfully maintain a lawsuit against ICANN in a local court based on the argument that ICANN targeted them improperly for some action.
We are looking for general advice rather than a country-by-country analysis, being interested in trends and reasonable probability and not legal certainty at this point
this relates to cost/effort – how do we wish to control this