RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

[Joseph <fhlee@tm.net.my>]

Hi,

Roeland Meyer:
--------------
>>> 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.
*** You are correct for all of the above and neither am I arguing that it is
untrue.

>>> <snip> ... Where does this not make ICANN subject to US State Department
authority? Alternatively, how is ICANN immune from US law?
>>> Now, can we drop the "ICANN is an international body" fable? It clearly
isn't one. Those who maintain otherwise are seriously mistaken.
*** ICANN is not immune to US Law. Neither is it bound to the laws of other
nations. I am saying that ICANN, being an important part of the internet
community has a much wider scope of responsibilities than only to the US.
Afterall the internet is a "borderless world". ICANN/DNSO has a lot of power
(directly and indirectly) and has the power to push down consensous to
ccTLD. Due to this reason alone, the concensous it pushes must take into
consideration the well-being of all nations. It a fact that ICANN is NOT an
international body but ICANN do have global responsibilities (internet is
borderless).  With this, it has to be "internationally-aware and sensitive".
You are right to say that ICANN IS currently governed by the law of USA.  I
am saying that it SHOULD not be. It would be nice that ICANN be a component
of an international body (UN) --just like UNESCO, WWF, IPPF, etc, etc
because it is dealing with international issues. I know this is wishful
thinking.

>>> 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.
*** I indicated in my post that this is related to the compliance of law.
Both yourself and John Barryhill is correct in this count. The reason I use
the word censorship is because I lack a better word for "disallowing the
registration of a domain name due to political reasons". Our disagreement is
on "whose law".  Your argument would then be that ICANN is in fact
incorporated in USA which I fully agree.  But is it "correct" to allow one
nation to control a global resource?  A extreme example (I mention extreme):
If USA is at war with Libya, can the government of Libya, through the
Department of Environment (which in turn outsourced the regulation of
cleanair to a 3rd party), disallow the consumption of air by American
journalists there? (yes, this is extreme and I know I'll be shot for this).


Please do correct me where I am mistaken.


regards,
- Joseph
=================

--
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