RE: [ga] RE: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to respo nse to response)

["erica roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

At the risk of stating the obvious ....
We seem to be in danger here of forgetting that the Internet is global but
the constitution of the USA is not.   While the US government is pretty
powerful, it is not a global or world government.  The rest of the world is
not bound by the constitution of the USA or the laws of the USA.  An
international treaty would be required to make alternate roots illegal in
the rest of the world.

erica


> IANAG Roeland, so I miss something in your reasoning. what the US
> constitution has to do with the root?
> Jefsey

It has nothing to do with it. The sections Roeland pointed to do not
in fact prevent such a law from being passed, nor would they make such
a law unconstitutional.

Not that I agree with the principle that such a law should be passed,
far from it.

But we need to use valid arguments to support that position, not ones
that are not based in facts.



> On 23:10 29/05/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>>A few points;
>>
>>Extracted from below;
>>
>> > > If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
>> > > not saying I agree with) it would be understood that current root and
>> > > the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
>> > > exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.
>>
>>See my first paragraph descibing the dilemma that ICANN/USG finds
themselves
>>in.
>>
>> > > Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
>> > > actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
>> > > would be prevent it.
>>
>>The US Constitution makes specific provisions for some activity and
>>specifically prohibits others, including the catch-all;
>>--
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>>http://tcnbp.tripod.com/index.htm
>>
>>Amendment IX
>>
>>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>>
>>Amendment X
>>
>>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
>>prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or
>>to the people.
>>--
>>
>>Also, considering that a root zone server is simply a publishing
mechanism,
>>there are, like it as not, First Amendment issues. I leave it to the
lawyers
>>to work out the details.
>>
>> From my reading of those texts, making root zone services an exclusive
right
>>of the USG would require a new Constitutional Amendment. There is a lot of
>>reasoning behind this, for which, lawyers are best equiped to argue.
>>
>>It is also worthy to note that none of the Federal Services contractors
>>(USPS, IRS, etc.) have any exclusive rights. Notably, the USPS has to
>>compete with FedEx and UPS, among others. Even at the height of Ma Bell
>>(AT&T) monopoly, there were no laws passed that stated that one could not,
>>or was prohibited from, stringing up your own copper and going into the
>>telephone business (Something MCI, in fact, did). Only the monopoly was
>>regulated, not the industry.
>>
>>The clamour for such regulation, from Kent Crispin and company, would make
>>the USG bend our Constitution near to the breaking point.
>>
>>--
>>IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
>>encouraged to seek legal advice.
>>--
>>ROELAND M.J. MEYER
>>Managing Director
>>Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
>>TEL: +001 925 373 3954
>>FAX: +001 925 373 9781
>>http://www.mhsc.com
>>mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > From: NameCritic [mailto:watch-dog@inreach.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:11 AM
>> >
>> > He is correct. No law can be passed against it that would stand up
>> > Internationally. The US cannot dictate what other countries do. If an
>> > alternate root was located in France or some other country
>> > then the law
>> > would have no effect whatsoever. I would really like to see
>> > people quit
>> > treating this as if the US is the only concern here. The Internet is
>> > INTERNATIONAL. International Network. Got it now? A US law can only be
>> > effective in the US. Alternate roots can be located anywhere.
>> > There are even
>> > a lot of countries that would welcome it and the last time I
>> > checked they
>> > don't abide by US Law.
>> >
>> > What would ICANN do then? Have all the users who surf the
>> > alternate roots
>> > arrested? I wouldn't put it past them, due to their arrogant
>> > attitude that
>> > one government contract somehow empowered them to make the
>> > rules the world
>> > will all now live by. The ICANN BoD needs a reality check.
>> > They aren't that
>> > big or that powerful.
>> >
>> > There will always be other root systems get used to it, deal
>> > with it, and
>> > get over the ego rush ICANN.
>> >
>> >
>> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:17 AM
>> >
>> > > Hello Roeland,
>> > >
>> > > One thing you missed.
>> > >
>> > > If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
>> > > not saying I agree with) it would be understood that
>> > current root and
>> > > the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
>> > > exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.
>> > >
>> > > Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
>> > > actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
>> > > would be prevent it.
>> > >
>> > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 1:53:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The problem Harald, is that the ICANN doesn't have the
>> > authority to make
>> > > > that stick and it cannot be given such authority, in the
>> > US, without
>> > > > violating some fundimental civil rights (laws). Neither
>> > can the USG
>> > accede,
>> > > > to ICANN, such power. They are prohibited by the US
>> > Constitution. ICANN
>> > *is*
>> > > > a California corporation and the USG *does* control the
>> > root, currently.
>> > The
>> > > > only way out of that dilemma is for ICANN to start a root
>> > registry and
>> > > > publish their own inclusive root zone (something that I've been
>> > suggesting
>> > > > for a while now). But, that makes the ICANN no better
>> > than any other
>> > > > inclusive root registry. The only difference will be that
>> > the USG has
>> > > > already given it a healthy startup boost.
>> > >
>> > > > It *still* does not preclude the appearance of competitive root
>> > registries
>> > > > AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT. Regardless of
>> > what mr. Crispin
>> > would
>> > > > like, the US is still not a totalitarian regime. Even were it so,
>> > > > jurisdiction outside of the US cannot be compelled to
>> > recognise such a
>> > law.
>> > > > We do not yet, have a world government and are not likely
>> > to have one in
>> > our
>> > > > lifetimes.
>> > >
>> > > > Given that incontrovertible condition, multiple root zones are
>> > inevitable if
>> > > > market forces present an attractive opportunity for them
>> > to exist. In
>> > this
>> > > > case, the only strategy that makes sense is for ICANN to
>> > present such an
>> > > > attractive value-proposition that the market is satisfied
>> > with their
>> > > > offering and won't support other root zones.
>> > >
>> > > > In short, it becomes a monopoly. Well, in the US, there's
>> > a problem with
>> > > > that too. It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, among
>> > others. This
>> > means
>> > > > that there will be at least two more root registries.
>> > There's more,
>> > history
>> > > > has shown that any market will have at least 3-5% of it's
>> > members using
>> > > > whatever competitor is available, simply to be
>> > cantankerous, if noting
>> > else.
>> > > > What this means is that any monopolist can never gain
>> > more than 95% of a
>> > > > given market. This may be sufficient for most historical
>> > monopolies, but
>> > it
>> > > > means that multiple roots are a god given certainty. Whom
>> > else do you
>> > think
>> > > > has that last 5% ... frosty the snowman? No sir, it's
>> > competitive root
>> > > > registries and 5% of 5M names, times $6 bucks a whack, is still a
>> > sizable
>> > > > chunk of change and Moore's law has dropped operations
>> > cost down to
>> > almost
>> > > > zip ($0).
>> > >
>> > > > Business drives technology ... always has and always
>> > will. It is not the
>> > > > place of the technologist to tell the market what it can
>> > do. The market
>> > will
>> > > > flatly reject that. If the technologist doesn't/can't
>> > deliver then the
>> > > > market will find another technologist that can/will. Kent
>> > Crispin's
>> > paper is
>> > > > nothing more than a technologist's excuse for not getting
>> > the job done.
>> > If
>> > > > the ICANN is stupid enough to accept it as gospel then it
>> > is finished.
>> > It's
>> > > > unenforcible, unimplementable, and just plain dumb. To
>> > make matters
>> > worse,
>> > > > he does not present a single problem that does not already have an
>> > > > implemented solution. In short, it's almost pure FUD.
>> > >
>> > > > Thank you. I'm sorry about going on so long.
>> > >
>> > > >> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>> > > >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:55 PM
>> > > >>
>> > > >> At 00:40 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> > > >> >Smart service providers won't offer highly
>> > > >> >conflicted names, most consumers won't buy them,
>> > > >> >and ISPs won't support them. They will converge, or
>> > > >> >die. Domain names have no value otherwise. You
>> > > >> >can't play with them, or hang them on your wall.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will
>> > > >> eventually occur.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do
>> > > >> not want to
>> > > >> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point
>> > > >> where one name
>> > > >> has only one resolution in any DNS service.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ICANN has proposed one way: strict regulation of entries into
>> > > >> a single
>> > > >> root, no conflicts allowed.
>> > > >> Name.space, ORSC and others have proposed another way: first
>> > > >> come first
>> > > >> served, talk until tired whenever conflicts occur.
>> > > >> New.net has proposed a third way: sell what you want, and
>> > > >> hope to get so
>> > > >> many customers that the others won't dare challenge you.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I personally think that ICANN's way is fairer and less
>> > > >> painful than the
>> > > >> other current proposals; I may be in a minority on that.
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
>>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



--
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html