RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Joseph [mailto:fhlee@tm.net.my]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:29 AM

|> 	On the same logic, if there is an existing sanction 
|> ruling by an international body (UN and not USA because 
|> ICANN is an international body), ICANN must observe the 
|> same rules. It is important to distinguish a USA law vs 
|> a UN law because if one is to observe the law of USA, one 
|> must also observe the law of Libya/Iraq thus cancelling 
|> each other out. UN on the other hand is a recognized 
|> international body.

I think that you are in dire need of some facts:
1) ICANN is a registered California, USA corp.
2) ICANN gets it's "authority" from the US Department of Commerce.
3) ICANN corporate offices are located in Marina Del Rey, California, USA.
4) ICANN is only immune, from various US anti-trust statutes, because of the
MoU it has signed with the US DOC. This is the same document that enables
item 2. The ICANN is protected under a "US contractor" umbrella, just like
NSI.

Where does this not make ICANN subject to US State Department authority?
Alternatively, how is ICANN immune from US law?

|> 	In summary, I am in support of the requirement of ICANN 
|> observing any international; ie voiding the Zero-Censorship 
|> in the case of a registration from countries/industries 
|> with information saction in place. Of course, I can 
|> understand that it will be difficult to be in full compliance.

It is not an issue of censorship. It is an issue of compliance with US law.
Censorship issues can be taken up with your representitive to the US
Government, whatever that may entail.

Now, can we drop the "ICANN is an international body" fable? It clearly
isn't one. Those who maintain otherwise are seriously mistaken.
--
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