Changes

The first paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/Paper1-AppLaw.pdf here].

The first paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/Paper1-AppLaw.pdf here].

[[Milton Mueller]] has pointed to the fact that any company in a given jurisdiction traditionally must answer to that jurisdiction's law, regardless of the way ICANN decides to allow its regulations with international businesses to develop. [[Nigel Roberts]] agrees that the EC has the right to intervene should it decide that ICANN is preventing, restricting, or distorting competition in the single market; and he goes on to afree with the EC that ICANN likely is in breach of this fundamental principal of EC law.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' Blog, nigel.je]</ref> Also, [[Milton Mueller]] believes that the EC misunderstanding the situation when it calls for review mechanisms to review all board decisions. In fact, ICANN does have an [[Independent Review Panel]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref>

[[Milton Mueller]] has pointed to the fact that any company in a given jurisdiction traditionally must answer to that jurisdiction's law, regardless of the way ICANN decides to allow its regulations with international businesses to develop. [[Nigel Roberts]] agrees that the EC has the right to intervene should it decide that ICANN is preventing, restricting, or distorting competition in the single market; and he goes on to agree with the EC that ICANN likely is in breach of this fundamental principal of EC law.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' Blog, nigel.je]</ref> Also, [[Milton Mueller]] believes that the EC misunderstanding the situation when it calls for review mechanisms to review all board decisions. In fact, ICANN does have an [[Independent Review Panel]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref>

====Paper 2: New gTLD Process====

====Paper 2: New gTLD Process====