Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

The point of this thread is about whether we can expect ICANN to do
something about:- 

a) Accredited US corporations which, to all intents and purposes, would
appear to be supporting the Jihad

b) Winning over Providers in CC jurisdictions despite very different laws
and trade embargoes and all that involves.

This industry's challenge is no different from any other. The banking sector
didn't have this problem. Very secretive and autonomous countries like
Switzerland, who usually take 50+ years to open their bank vaults, have been
fully cooperating and freezing accounts for weeks. These historical events
don't come aboutas a result of hugging trees, but by governments in crisis
seeking to protect the lives of their people, hundreds of millions of them.

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's not meant as a threat, but it
seems a no brainer to me that if the internet community does not get its act
together in short order and start co-operating *proactively* in this war
effort from a "user" perspective as well as a "developer" and "provider"
perspective, (which essentially means starting the job of freezing DN
accounts in a matter of hours and days, not months and years), then those
providers are going to find a very heavy weight land on them from a great
height, and they better hope it's called Congressman Howard Bermann.

Of course it all comes down to the fact that ICANN doesn't have any users in
any position to lobby effectively, and can only rely on an overstretched
government to put a bomb under those who would ridicule the idea of any
easily identifiable and fully operational websites staring them in the face,
not that they've acted looked, obviously, far too busy watching the bottom
line.

The choice is either to divert some expert technical knowledge into blocking
as many parts of the critical infrastructure as providers think can be
effective to thwart the perpetrators of these crimes, (even risking a few
innocents caught in the friendly fire), or they can all run around in
circles crying "mission creep" and "AMERICANN", do nothing about it, and
watch many more folks walk into the bright light, hoping the catalyst was
not made via the internet. My conscience is clear. I don't own IP blocks,
run servers or sell Domain Names.

It has not escaped my notice that in the Registrar Department, a few big
fish around here have been passing the buck to the small fish since this
story broke. That is not the answer. The sites have to go down. Nothing less
will do.

Regards,
Joanna


P.S: To the Registrar Community:
Here's a few words to warm up your spider, and a bedtime story you may have
missed. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001390014-2001395995,00.html.

Afghanistan
Burma
Iran
Libya
Sudan
Korea
Angola
Cuba
Iraq
Yugoslavia



on 11/16/01 4:21 AM, Joseph at fhlee@tm.net.my 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.
> 
> 
> 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 in.
> 
> 
> 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
> 


--
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