Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joseph and all assembly members,

Joseph wrote:

> Hi Roeland,
>         If I get your points correctly, you are implicating that this ML and the GA
> (ICANN/DNSO) is effectively for Americans only and that members from other
> nations are welcomed but actually has no position here?  This is not an
> accusation, I mean to ask this question in good faith as I would like to
> know if I've made a mistake in joing this list (I am not an American) and I
> have only joined recently.

  I don't think this is what Roeland meant or was trying to convey..  But
perhaps Roeland can better articulate his meaning better for you.

>
>
> General Assembly Members,
>         Would appreciate if you can agree/disagree the statement above. I would not
> want to meddle in areas where I have no place

  You belong here as much as any of us do.  Stick around!  >;)
The learning curve is not all that long...

>
>
> regards,
> - Joseph
> ================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: 'Joseph'; [ga]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
>
> |> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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