RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Joseph [mailto:fhlee@tm.net.my]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:36 PM

|> 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. 

Actually, it isn't bound unless it wants to be. The ICANN doesn't actually
have any real authority. ICANN only makes recommendations to the US DOC, as
per the MoU. Ergo, there is nothing to bind. Note that I am using "bind" in
its legal definition. Likewise, foreign laws are not binding on the ICANN
because ICANN isn't operating on their soil. How is some entity (US or
otherwise) going to object to a recommendation made from a US corp to a US
regulator, under a US contract? Ergo, your second statement is false. The
only way even a US entity stands a chance is in Appellate Court. A non-US
entity may have insufficient legal standing there.

|> 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". 

That's not even loosely true. The internet is in the physical world and the
physical world has borders (thank, God). Also, the role of the ICANN appears
to be diminishing. Operators on the Internet are subject to local LEOs and
judges can make rulings effecting their behavior. There is lots of law that
pertains to behavior, regardless of the medium in which one chooses to
express that behavior. It has only been a delusion, that existing law does
not apply to the Internet. I am sorry that you still suffer from it.

|> ICANN/DNSO has a lot of power (directly and indirectly) 
|> and has the power to push down consensous to ccTLD. 

Actually, that's not true either. Each country can setup their own Internet
and connect it to ours. You seem to have missed the point that those are
sovreign nations. Some of them run their own ccTLD directly.

|> 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".

That is nothing more than a sound marketing position. However, it is not
mandatory. The US DOC doesn't have to listen to the ICANN and sometimes it
doesn't. However, the US DOC always listens to the US Congress and the
Secretary of Commerce is a Cabinet posting.

|> 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.

That was tried. The US Congress objected and that's why we have ICANN. The
Internet, as it works today, is a weird mix of US gov and private US
business. Everyone else is welcome to come and play, but at the end of the
day, we know whose sand-box everyone is playing in. What makes me wonder is
that other governments haven't decided to build their own sand boxen.

|> > 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 are 
|> 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".  

Instead of "censorship", use "policy restriction".

|> 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?  

Anyone is freely capable of building their own internet. In fact, many of us
have done so already. There are no laws prohibiting one from doing that. The
way the technology works, they'd only look foolish for trying. Fortunately,
they seem to be aware of that.

|> 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).

Shall I LART you with the invalid/weak analogy speech or will you be LART'd
later? Be precise, don't hide behind analogous bushes, and don't patronize
your betters.
--
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