Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #855
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, November 17 2001         Volume 01 : Number 855

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:31:49 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Does anyone know of a prior occurrence of;

One Nation doing what the US Gov. is doing here.

When telegraphs and telephones went international, how did they do that?

When mail became international, how did they do that?

Ships seem to have been going in and out of international and national
waters
for time eternal how do we allow and govern that?

Interesting areas worth reviewing are Hague, Torecelli (Cuba) and the
basis for
cooperation on the Olympics.

Sincerely,
Eric

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Many more months ago than I care to recall, I said that
> the USG has no authority over the internet and domain
> names and all that rot, WIPO is a pretender, and the
> whole thing rests on fraud. International control of any
> globe-encompassing entity can only come from international
> agreement, by way of treaty, not some Executive Order
> out of any White House, directions out of any D of C,
> or anything like that.  When such a treaty exists, THEN
> people can complain about what the U. S. does. Until
> then, this mess we've created has the global internet
> subject to the laws of California and the U. S.
>
> Even then, what the U.S. and the rest of the world are
> a part of through the U. N. still allows any country to
> act unilaterally in its own defense, and the U.S. could
> still be expected to do so, as would any other country
> under the same circumstances.
>
> (With both China and Taiwan now in the WTO, it
> may be time now to commence generating such a
> treaty.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
>
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
> page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
> Part I:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
> available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> Part III:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html
>
> --
> 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 09:10:14 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

The one-word answer for all of that is "treaty". This includes the court of
International Law, in Den Haag, NL. The reason that the Internet even works
is that it piggy-backs on international telecommunication agreements for
telephony and telegraph. Evenso, the host country can cut the link across
their border any time they want to. In addition, there are differences. Try
taking your PCS cell phone to London, UK. Don't expect it to work (I usually
rent GSM phones when I go there). Likewise, GSM phones won't work here.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:32 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: Joop Teernstra; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
|> 
|> 
|> Does anyone know of a prior occurrence of;
|> 
|> One Nation doing what the US Gov. is doing here.
|> 
|> When telegraphs and telephones went international, how did 
|> they do that?
|> 
|> When mail became international, how did they do that?
|> 
|> Ships seem to have been going in and out of international 
|> and national
|> waters
|> for time eternal how do we allow and govern that?
|> 
|> Interesting areas worth reviewing are Hague, Torecelli (Cuba) and the
|> basis for
|> cooperation on the Olympics.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Eric
|> 
|> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
|> 
|> > Many more months ago than I care to recall, I said that
|> > the USG has no authority over the internet and domain
|> > names and all that rot, WIPO is a pretender, and the
|> > whole thing rests on fraud. International control of any
|> > globe-encompassing entity can only come from international
|> > agreement, by way of treaty, not some Executive Order
|> > out of any White House, directions out of any D of C,
|> > or anything like that.  When such a treaty exists, THEN
|> > people can complain about what the U. S. does. Until
|> > then, this mess we've created has the global internet
|> > subject to the laws of California and the U. S.
|> >
|> > Even then, what the U.S. and the rest of the world are
|> > a part of through the U. N. still allows any country to
|> > act unilaterally in its own defense, and the U.S. could
|> > still be expected to do so, as would any other country
|> > under the same circumstances.
|> >
|> > (With both China and Taiwan now in the WTO, it
|> > may be time now to commence generating such a
|> > treaty.)
|> >
|> > Bill Lovell
|> >
|> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
|> >
|> > > 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
|> >
|> > --
|> >
|> > The URLs for Best Practices:
|> > DNSO Citation:
|> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
|> > (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
|> > Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
|> > page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
|> > Part I:
|> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
|> > Part II:
|> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
|> > (Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
|> > available for free down load at
|> > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
|> > Part III:
|> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html
|> >
|> > --
|> > 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
|> 
- --
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 14:41:26 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>

> The one-word answer for all of that is "treaty". This includes the court of
> International Law, in Den Haag, NL. The reason that the Internet even works
> is that it piggy-backs on international telecommunication agreements for
> telephony and telegraph.

For physical connectivity, perhaps.  For commercial contracts relating to
domain name registrations, absolutely not.

Whether a US company accepts money from the Iraqi government to perform
domain name registration services is not remotely related to what goes on at
the physical interface between different national telecommunication systems
that allow bits to get from hither to yon.

It may be possible to send postal mail to Iraq, but that does not mean you
can conduct catalog sales with Iraqis through the vehicle of postal mail.

- --
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 14:45:52 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

> You are right to say that ICANN IS currently governed by the law of USA.  I
> am saying that it SHOULD not be.

Then would you agree to reversing the result of every UDRP decision where a
non-US registrant was found to have engaged in cybersquatting on the basis of
a US trademark?

It would seem to be a relative no-brainer that if ICANN is going to engage
itself in establishing a policy relating to aspects of national civil law,
then ICANN should CERTAINLY have a higher priority for establishing a policy
relating to the CRIMINAL law of the United States.

- --
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 21:14:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

Host                     IP             OS             Bind-version

pan.bijt.net		213.196.2.97	FreeBSD        8.2.4-REL

ZS01.root-service.net	216.27.184.243  SUsE Linux     8.2.3-REL

ZS02.root-service.net	216.27.184.234  SUsE Linux     8.2.3-REL

osiris.speedkom.net	213.182.0.1	?	       9.9-REL :-)

- --
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 14:26:48 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

:)

If you use the Internet, it is important your ideas are included in the 
public forums available.

Right now, this is the only forum for folks and business to communicate 
about policy for regulating US Root servers, other Root servers, and the 
layers which trust them to provide accurate location information.

We have all continued to witness ICANN completely disregarding their 
responsibility to provide accurate location information in a variety of 
ways and to the written charter they are legal bound to adhere to.

Many of us are continually amazed by ICANN's behavior and watch - pondering 
what they will do next while hoping they are like the slow to learn dogs 
Pavlov described who will one day perform their duty in an effective 
efficient manner that does not cause folks to notice they exist.

If I were on the ICANN BoD my first priority would be to ensure things ran 
so smoothly and we were so effective attending to details that no one would 
pay us any mind other than the businesses who require communication with us 
to receive our services.  I am not on the BoD and apparently no one there 
is anything like me.

;)

~k

- --
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 23:14:02 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On 18:01 16/11/01, Joanna Lane said:
>No common TV appearances here .....The

you really believe that? Buy yourself a dish and learn about real TV 
:-)  Are we on the same planet or did Bush as Immigration to stop foreigh 
TV satellite foothold at the UIS Boarder?
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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:57:12 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

> 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?

The same way that ANY business must abide by the law.  Regulatory compliance
is a cost of doing any business.  The internet does not function in some
imaginary world where companies do not need to be concerned with obeying the
criminal law of their own jurisdiction.  It is inconvenient, it incurs costs,
and it is required of any business.  One might just as well ask how these
businesses keep track of changes in tax law, labor law, commercial law,
corporate law, or anything else which is relevant to doing business in the
real world.

As far as "individuals" go, it is a fact of life that many people are
identically-named, and filtering by name may not be a reasonable expectation.
However, for a US registrar to simply weed out registrations for which the
registrar is self-identified to be in a country with whom doing business is
illegal, that is an extremely simple thing to do.  I would submit that any
registrar can, within a matter of seconds, produce a list of registrants
having addresses in Iraq.

Additionally, where a registrar receives information sufficient to reasonable
believe that a named party is in fact a banned party, then the registrar
should take appropriate action to ensure compliance with the law.

John

- --
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 17:41:35 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
>  John Berryhill is here to represent respondents.  But John does
> not know every respondent, let alone the potential respondents.  So I got
to
> thinking 'what constitutes a respondent?' The one thing they all have is a
> domain name

80% of the time, they end up without one, but that is not a uniformly bad
thing. :-)

My nightmare scenario is that the respondent in this case ends up with all
our email addresses:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1286.html
"DiTucci's many communications, demands, threats, attempts to derail this
process, unfounded speculations, and ad hominem attacks have no place here --
other than to confirm that DiTucci is attempting in this specific proceeding
to play well outside the foul lines. "

(if you haven't read that decision, and you need a good chuckle, that one is
a riot)

I've circulated the URL to other attorneys who have represented multiple
respondents in UDRP cases, but I would hate to wade through too many
incoherent rants, present company excepted and all rants therefrom welcomed.

John

- --
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 17:45:57 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Elections

Please be advised that I have instructed the DNSO Secretariat to commence the 
election process to select a new Chair and Alternate Chair for the General 
Assembly of the DNSO.
- --
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 19:20:12 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

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 [email-masked] 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:[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
> 

- --
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: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:19:29 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:45:57 EST, [email-masked] wrote:

>Please be advised that I have instructed the DNSO Secretariat to commence the 
>election process to select a new Chair and Alternate Chair for the General 
>Assembly of the DNSO.

On the assumption you are resigning (which opening nominations for
your job implies) I would like to thank you for all the effort you
have put into the job.

I've not always agreed with your rather blunt methods but I have
appreciated the passion and dedication you brought to the job and your
willingness to confront those who you believe are acting wrongly.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 19:30:37 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: The Terrorism Factor for ICANN was: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joanna and all assembly members,

  You outlined most of the concerns and problems that have been
endemic to lack of oversight from the ICANN BoD and staff up
until now.  Perhaps they are now willing to take some initiative.
We will see.  However, many or us, including yours truly have
been harping on this lack or responsibility from the ICANN BoD
and staff for over a year now.  So far they have been lax.  But
also let us not forget the the DOC/NTIA share in that oversight
authority with ICANN.  They too have been less than diligent.
Perhaps now, that too will change.  Again we shall see.

  We as stakeholders also share in this responsibility as well.
We can as you suggest be proactive and if ICANN will not
act, and so so precipitously, than we as individual stakeholders
should and must do so.  It is for this and many other reasons that
we [INEGroup] strongly believe that the At-Large must include
as a majority or the Bod seats, voting representation without
restriction as to status.

  It is just this simple.  The use or the DNS or any part of the internet
for the purposes or terrorism or purposeful fraud anywhere in the
world cannot and will not stand.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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 [email-masked] 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:[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
> >
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #855
************************