Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

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

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > > Should we block, for example, www.rawa.net, the Revolutionary Assoc
> > > of Women of Afghanistan?
> >
> > I think you mean rawa.org  :)  I get a LOT of misdirected email
> > intended for them at my raw.org domain.
>
> Right. My mistake.
>
> > > Should we block Cuba, since the US embargo them? Canada has never
> > > joined that embargo, nor has most of Europe.
> >
> > Realistically, ICANN is required to follow US Law, like it or not,
> > unless it is granted a specific legal exemption, which would require
> > passage of new laws.
>
> Perhaps, but a quick search turns up many .cu web sites. To my mind,
> trying to remove .cu from the root servers would be contrary to
> everything the US gov't has said about an international ICANN, open
> processes, ...

  Yes but the US is not at war with cuba.

>
>
> In law, the US gov't almost certainly has the power to force ICANN and,
> even moreso, US firms like Verisign, to comply with their various
> embargoes. In reality, they do not appear to be doing so.

  This is oh so true.  The Vigilance role here is not yet well received
in some agencies.  It will be.

>
>
> > > Then there's the whole question of the international nature of the net,
> > > and ICANN's mission to run the thing in the interests of its users
> > > worldwide. ICANN is a California corporation, hence obviously subject
> > > to US law. What happens when the mission and US law conflict?
> >
> > The law MUST win, unless and until it is granted exemptions by new
> > laws from those existing laws.
>
> Yes, but that depends at least on whether the US gov't chooses to
> rigorously enforce those laws and, should they do so, on whether
> ICANN chooses to resist arguing their obligation, largely derived
> from US gov't documents, to be open and international.

  ICANN can argue and do so quite well.  But in the short end,
they shall loose.

>
>
> My guess would be that the US gov't has no intention of trying to
> shut down Iraqi or Lybian or ... access to the net, and for good
> reason. That would be neither a good move in terms of the gov't's
> image, nor an effective attack on those regimes.

  Perhaps so.  I would tend to disagree in some specific instances.
Iraq is one of them. Libya may be another in the near term.  As for
effective I do disagree with that notion.  We just recently shut down
all communications in Afghanistan.  Should Iraq be in the Bush admin.'s
sights next, they too shall reap the whirlwind.  Just perhaps not yet.
You know, the wheels of justice grind slowly sometimes, but they
grind exceedingly fine...

>
>
> This could be tested fairly easily. If you believe those embargos
> are justified and Verisign is illegally violating them, then turn
> them in. If I'm right, the gov't will do nothing.

  Perhaps.  But if you file a complaint, action will be taken.

>
>
> Of course, al-queda.org might be a whole other story.
> --
> 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