Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #853
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, November 16 2001          Volume 01 : Number 853

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:53:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ncdnhc.org disappeared?

Is it just me, or has www.ncdnhc.org disappeared from the DNS?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:09:24 +0900 (KST)
From: Chun Eung Hwi <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ncdnhc.org disappeared?

Dear Thomas Roessler, 

Now, that site has some trouble.
Please access to  http://198.6.250.8/

Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   [email-masked]   
- ------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Is it just me, or has www.ncdnhc.org disappeared from the DNS?
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:19:52 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On 07:20 15/11/01, Joanna Lane said:
>For a start, what would it take to run a spider over the WHOIS databases and
>identify all the domain names registered to embargoed countries?

By which right "embrgoed". By chance the US are offering hospitality to 
international services. The first duty of a host is to respect the 
hospitality rules, i.e. not to take advantage from them to the detriment of 
the host. It can be hurting. In some period the response was honor. It 
seems that today the question is money.
Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:17:57 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 07:20 15/11/01, Joanna Lane said:
> >For a start, what would it take to run a spider over the WHOIS databases and
> >identify all the domain names registered to embargoed countries?
>
> By which right "embrgoed".

By U. S. Law.  We say what comes in and out of this country.

> By chance the US are offering hospitality to
> international services.

By initial creativity within ARPA, not by chance.

> The first duty of a host is to respect the
> hospitality rules, i.e. not to take advantage from them to the detriment of
> the host.

The first duty of a country is to protect itself, hosting anything be damned.

> It can be hurting. In some period the response was honor. It
> seems that today the question is money.

The issue is not money but 5,000 dead people from 86 countries.
We've seen what can happen when we let our "hosting" go lax.

I cannot believe what I read in Jefsey's post -- he seems to be
quite out of touch with the new post-Sept. 11 reality.

Bill Lovell

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:36:03 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Hi,

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

>>> 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 is 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".  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?  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).

Please do correct me where I am mistaken.

regards,
- - Joseph
=================

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:32:55 -0800
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Marina del Rey Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:08 PM
To: ICANN-MDR 2001 Preregistrants requesting Updates & Webcast Participants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Marina del Rey Meetings Complete, Archive Now
Available

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you attended or registered to attend
ICANN's public meetings in Marina del Rey, California (Novermber 12-15) in
person or via webcast.

Today's ICANN Public Forum and Board Meeting are now complete, and archives
of this session, as well as preceding Community Meetings and other sessions,
have now been posted in the online meeting archive at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive>.  Archives include
agendas, RealVideo recordings, scribe's notes, documents and presentations
discussed, real-time questions received, and online discussion logs.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
you may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
instructions.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:49:41 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Hi,

Jefsey Morfin: By which right "embrgoed".
William Lovell: By U. S. Law.  We say what comes in and out of this country.
- ------
Jefsey Morfin: By chance the US are offering hospitality to international
services.
William Lovell: By initial creativity within ARPA, not by chance.
- ------
William Lovell: The first duty of a host is to respect the hospitality
rules, i.e. not to take advantage from them to the detriment of the host.
- ------
William Lovell: The first duty of a country is to protect itself, hosting
anything be damned.
- ------
Jefsey Morfin: It can be hurting. In some period the response was honor. It
seems that today the question is money.
William Lovell: The issue is not money but 5,000 dead people from 86
countries. We've seen what can happen when we let our "hosting" go lax.

*** I can understand that many people are concern/hurt/disturbed by the 9/11
incident. But would the statements above a little overboard? You do know
that 86 countries are involved. William/Bill, I would like to clarify if you
are claiming ownership of the internet by USA (2nd point above)? If this is
not what you claim, you have my appologies.

regards,
- - Joseph
================

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:23:46 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

on 11/15/01 3:40 PM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:

> Those concerning themselves with security aspects of this might want to know
> that not having a publically visible DNS entry does not technically prohibit
> one from being on the Internet. However, blocking all packets in/out of
> those countries does. Even so, snaking a fiber bundle across a border, to a
> friendly/oblivious neighbor, adequately gets around that problem as well.
> 

If you protect your building with a security alarm, you are not providing
any form of physical barrier to entry, but it's effective as a deterrant
against the casual opportunist, which 90% of the risk.  So the fact that
there is no fullproof method to prevent entry into the DNS is no reason not
to put up barriers. There are two aspects to this, provider and user. You
want to stop terrorists being able to disseminate information, and stop
users from receiving it. Both can be deterred by what would seem to me to be
an incredibly simple task, removing all embargoed Domain names from the DNS.

Regards,
Joanna 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:04:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joseph and all assembly members,

  No the internet is not owned by the USA.  But the DNS and root server
structure aka "Legacy/USG Roots" are owned by the USA.  .US is
owned by the USA as well.  Hence the importance of the DNS to the
USA and to the DNSO in particular.

Joseph wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Jefsey Morfin: By which right "embrgoed".
> William Lovell: By U. S. Law.  We say what comes in and out of this country.
> ------
> Jefsey Morfin: By chance the US are offering hospitality to international
> services.
> William Lovell: By initial creativity within ARPA, not by chance.
> ------
> William Lovell: The first duty of a host is to respect the hospitality
> rules, i.e. not to take advantage from them to the detriment of the host.
> ------
> William Lovell: The first duty of a country is to protect itself, hosting
> anything be damned.
> ------
> Jefsey Morfin: It can be hurting. In some period the response was honor. It
> seems that today the question is money.
> William Lovell: The issue is not money but 5,000 dead people from 86
> countries. We've seen what can happen when we let our "hosting" go lax.
>
> *** I can understand that many people are concern/hurt/disturbed by the 9/11
> incident. But would the statements above a little overboard? You do know
> that 86 countries are involved. William/Bill, I would like to clarify if you
> are claiming ownership of the internet by USA (2nd point above)? If this is
> not what you claim, you have my appologies.
>
> regards,
> - Joseph
> ================
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:37:41 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Can someone translate this?

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Joseph and all assembly members,
>
>   No the internet is not owned by the USA.  But the DNS and root server
> structure aka "Legacy/USG Roots" are owned by the USA.  .US is
> owned by the USA as well.  Hence the importance of the DNS to the
> USA and to the DNSO in particular.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:01:13 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Watershed day

The board actually acted like a BoD this afternoon.

We have ongoing debates as to why; but who cares, they did.

I think much can be attributed to our Chair and AL elections coming up.

I must have been outside because I missed any IDNO presentation.  What
is up with that?

no wonder they have no constituency. yikes!

Well I am sure that individual/consumers will have a constituency rather
swiftly.  Too bad about DNO being dysfunctional.

E

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:04:45 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joseph,

you are right to ask such questions.  I look forward to the answers.
Eric

Joseph wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Jefsey Morfin: By which right "embrgoed".
> William Lovell: By U. S. Law.  We say what comes in and out of this country.
> ------
> Jefsey Morfin: By chance the US are offering hospitality to international
> services.
> William Lovell: By initial creativity within ARPA, not by chance.
> ------
> William Lovell: The first duty of a host is to respect the hospitality
> rules, i.e. not to take advantage from them to the detriment of the host.
> ------
> William Lovell: The first duty of a country is to protect itself, hosting
> anything be damned.
> ------
> Jefsey Morfin: It can be hurting. In some period the response was honor. It
> seems that today the question is money.
> William Lovell: The issue is not money but 5,000 dead people from 86
> countries. We've seen what can happen when we let our "hosting" go lax.
>
> *** I can understand that many people are concern/hurt/disturbed by the 9/11
> incident. But would the statements above a little overboard? You do know
> that 86 countries are involved. William/Bill, I would like to clarify if you
> are claiming ownership of the internet by USA (2nd point above)? If this is
> not what you claim, you have my appologies.
>
> regards,
> - Joseph
> ================
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:00:59 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:45:39 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments of MdR meeting participants from Asia, Africa and East European countries on ALSC Final Report!

At 07:38 16/11/01 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
><snip>
>We therefore strongly plead for maintaining an At-Large structure where
>the internet community in many developing countries is not excluded from
>participation, to initiate the possibility for new At-Large members to
>register, to elect the remaining 4 directors also from four regions in
>rotated order, and to retain 9 seats for board members to be elected by
>the At-Large Membership. In each term, every region which has two
>directors will be chosen to fill the position of the region with only one
>director in the previous term
>
>As new elections for the presently serving 5 at-large director positions
>are due to be held in 2002, time is running and urgent actions are needed.
>
>
>23 Participants from Africa, Asia and East European Countries
>
>Asomiddin Atoev / Tajikistan
>Charles Musisi / Uganda
>Christina Haralanova / Bulgaria
>Chun Eung Hwi / Korea
>Daniel Yakmut Inusa / Nigeria
>Gilbert Lumantao / Phillipines
>Hakikur Rahman / Bangladesh
>Jeonghye Choi / Korea
>Maman Sani Zakari / Niger
>Mariusz Kondrat / Poland
>Nino Kunstseva-Gabashvili / Georgia
>Nobert Klein / Cambodia
>Paulos Nyirenda / Malawi
>Perpetus Jacques Houngbo / Benin
>Rajesh Sharma / Thailand
>Slobodan Markovic / Yugoslavia
>Thierry Amoussougbo / Benin
>Toshimaru Ogura / Japan
>Valerie Gordon / Jamaica
>William Tevie / Ghana
>Xoliswa Kakana / South Africa
>Yashar Hajiyev / Azerbaijan
>Zenaida Ugart / Phillipines

We should open this on the web and enable more names to be added to this list.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:56:55 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

At 18:17 15/11/01 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:

>I cannot believe what I read in Jefsey's post -- he seems to be
>quite out of touch with the new post-Sept. 11 reality.

Jefsey's point , i think, is the reliability of the DNS/Internet.
Individual countries can be at war and implement local martial law 
legislation.
Today it is the US, tomorrow it can be China.
Should this result in large scale yanking of domains from the DNS?
Just because ICANN was incorporated in California?

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:04:02 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On 17:06 15/11/01 -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:

>One of the reasons it is not analogous is that domain name registration
>services provided by a US company cannot even be remotely argued to be
>necessary to use the internet.

On a practical note, the lists of banned organizations and Individuals is 
changing all the time. How could a registrar keep an eye on it and obey it 
without incurring cost for us all?

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:35:22 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ncdnhc.org disappeared?

nope. not just you.....

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Is it just me, or has www.ncdnhc.org disappeared from the DNS?
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:21:10 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:01 PM
To: 'Joseph'; [ga]
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:28:21 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Comments of MdR meeting participants from Asia, Africa and East European countries on ALSC Final Report!

What is the point of inviting @Large members from other nations if
ICANN/DNSO is only concerned with the well-being just 1 specific nation?

regards,
- - Joseph
================

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joop
Teernstra
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:46 AM
To: Chun Eung Hwi
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments of MdR meeting participants from Asia, Africa
and East European countries on ALSC Final Report!

At 07:38 16/11/01 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
><snip>
>We therefore strongly plead for maintaining an At-Large structure where
>the internet community in many developing countries is not excluded from
>participation, to initiate the possibility for new At-Large members to
>register, to elect the remaining 4 directors also from four regions in
>rotated order, and to retain 9 seats for board members to be elected by
>the At-Large Membership. In each term, every region which has two
>directors will be chosen to fill the position of the region with only one
>director in the previous term
>
>As new elections for the presently serving 5 at-large director positions
>are due to be held in 2002, time is running and urgent actions are needed.
>
>
>23 Participants from Africa, Asia and East European Countries
>
>Asomiddin Atoev / Tajikistan
>Charles Musisi / Uganda
>Christina Haralanova / Bulgaria
>Chun Eung Hwi / Korea
>Daniel Yakmut Inusa / Nigeria
>Gilbert Lumantao / Phillipines
>Hakikur Rahman / Bangladesh
>Jeonghye Choi / Korea
>Maman Sani Zakari / Niger
>Mariusz Kondrat / Poland
>Nino Kunstseva-Gabashvili / Georgia
>Nobert Klein / Cambodia
>Paulos Nyirenda / Malawi
>Perpetus Jacques Houngbo / Benin
>Rajesh Sharma / Thailand
>Slobodan Markovic / Yugoslavia
>Thierry Amoussougbo / Benin
>Toshimaru Ogura / Japan
>Valerie Gordon / Jamaica
>William Tevie / Ghana
>Xoliswa Kakana / South Africa
>Yashar Hajiyev / Azerbaijan
>Zenaida Ugart / Phillipines

We should open this on the web and enable more names to be added to this
list.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #853
************************