Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> -  under which law is the iCANN legal? Don't say CA, that is the law to
>     build the iCANN structure. Don't say the US: they dont even know
>     what is the iCANN mission. 

Actually, I was rather taken aback at the apparent
ignorance of the American legislators who were
chairing the Conress hearings.  In light of this,
I think all heretofore efforts at Education and
Outreach have definitely been seriously lacking
and must be entirely reevaluated, and revamped. 

>I think the only country where iCANN really
>     has a legal mission is Tuvalu since the iCANN protected ".tv" is part
>     of the royal domain. 

This TLD represents a particularly interesting
proposition.  On one hand, you have some
governments asking WIPO to influence ICANN to
sanction the repossession of "geographic
indication" TLDs, on the other, you have nations
selling/privatizing their ccTLDs to the highest
bidder... 

>The French Internet law project does not even
>     mention iCANN.

I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me.  I
think most nations are pretty much as skeptical of
the goings-on at ICANN, just as many of their
private citizens who take part in forums like this
one are. 
 
> -  I must confess I was deadly wrong in calling first for a DN definition.

Now Jefsey, that's just the problem...  What do
you want?  Anarchy?  
 
>     Sotiris: I realize we have a bigger problem: we have no legal definition
>     of the Internet. This is a far more important subject: the Internet was
>     first referred to as "the nets". That is a better name. The nets may be
>     supported by several name resolution programs including the DNS,
>     hosts.txt etc... "the nets" are not subject to most Internet related
>     legislations. where are the boarders? What may define Internet vs. an
>     externet, the nets... not the protocols, not the IP addresses, not
>     the access providers, not the users, not the browsers, not the law...

I personally feel that the US has done a
marvellous job of fostering, indeed engendering,
the Internet.  I believe we should work hard at
keeping US involvement and interest in the ICANN
high. However, I also believe America must come to
terms with the reality that the Internet has
become an international Public Domain... where
people can meet, exchange, and relate without
having to produce passports!!!  

Personally speaking, I don't think it would be
prudent to allow the net to disintegrate into
another "zone of inluence" politic.  

>     Only consensus... and they want to vote and legislate consensus?

I think if we're going to consider the benefit of
the of the Internet Community as a whole, we're
going to have to have a real effort made to
determine what that may be.  I, too, find the
undefined "consensus" quite stupefying, in
fact....  Mais, Jefsey, ma pauvre, we must forever
be running round in circles you and I, it
seems...  Unless, of course, we realize we don't
have any tails to catch.

Enlivened education and outreach, along with
clear, cogent descriptions and definitions of
processes, services, and product, for a global
market... nothing less will do.  If ICANN fails,
what will make the son-of-ICANN any more
legitimate?  

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html