Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #858
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, November 19 2001          Volume 01 : Number 858

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

Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:46:51 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

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, ...

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.
 
> > 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.

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.

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.

Of course, al-queda.org might be a whole other story.
- --
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 19:24:47 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Elections

I only hope that Danny is calling for elections to meet the calendar or
because he has been solicited for a position that he feels has a
conflict.

While I understand that the positions must come from within our
organization;  I would rather we do a placement search and then a
popular election.

We really do not need a popular couple of folks we need folks who are
good at this kind of thing.

We also need to pay them.

Don't jump down my throat these are just comments for thought early on
in the process.

Eric

- --
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 21:48:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

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 [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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:39:15 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

> > Look, it's very simple.

> However, there are a bunch of complications.
>
> For one thing, some of the anti-terrorism laws might eventually be ruled
> unconstitutional in the US. Certainly organisations like the ACLU are
> asking some hard questions:

That's nonsense.  Yes, there are all sorts of questions about various
anti-terrorism measures.  NOBODY, including the ACLU, has questioned the
constitutionality of OFAC regulations.  That's just a plain nutty argument.
We've had an embargo against Cuba for about 40 years.  I'm pretty sure that
any constitutional issues relating to the Cuba embargo would have come up by
now.  That's just a plain dumb argument, and has nothing to do with the law
we are talking about here.

> Also, booting certain nations off the net might play straight into the
> hands of various extremists there. Consider the fact that Taliban banned
> the Internet in Afghanistan as "unIslamic".

Who cares.  Making drugs illegal increases profits for drug dealers.  Guess
what?  Certain drugs remain illegal.

> There's some sort of trade-off there. Do the forces of Goodness, Right
> and Openness gain more by helping the victims of Benighted Gov'ts to
> get access to the net or by blocking it? What do those victims want?

Who cares?  Do US internet companies get to break a law that everyone else
has to obey simply because they are "special"?  That is the only question,
and the only answer is "no".

> Should we block Cuba, since the US embargo them? Canada has never
> joined that embargo, nor has most of Europe.

The Cuba embargo has lots of exceptions.  I haven't read them, and thus have
not addressed Cuba.  Why don't you go read the regs at the OFAC web site and
let us know.  If they want to register a domain name with Tucows, in Canada,
then whoopee for them.  But we are talking about the simple matter of US
companies obeying US law.  Sure, there might be all sorts of reasons why it
is a silly or counterproductive law.  Then, what you do is you go change the
law.  Or you break the law, and challenge it in court.  But what you don't
do is to sit around and rationalize breaking it.

> 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?

That is an absolute no-brainer.  Go Daddy is a US business.  They are taking
money from Iraq for providing a service to Iraq.  What any of the above has
to do with their violation of the law concerning providing services to Iraq,
I have no idea.

ICANN's mission is to perform services under a contract it has with the
Department of Commerce.  The US Department of Commerce is the ONLY body to
whom ICANN must answer.

If you have a problem with people in country X obeying the law of country X,
then you go talk to the judge in the Smiley litigation, who had no problem
whatsoever applying California's lottery law to an entire "international"
TLD.

> So there are some well-known precedents for the notion that
> international standards for the Internet should place the
> interests of users above the laws of various nations, in
> particular attempting to deliver real security even though
> US law attempts to restrict cryptography to stuff the NSA
> can easily break.

Thoroughly irrelevant.  If the Iraqis want a domain name and they don't want
to induce a violation of US law, then they can go register with a European
registrar.  It is that simple.

> I'm inclined to think that argument applies to international
> standards for domain names. Libya and Iraq, for example,
> are recognised by the UN or International Postal Union or
> whoever assigns country codes. Hence they should have DNS
> service for the corresponding top-level domian.

Wrong.  We already discussed that there are specific treaties which deal
with postal delivery.  Please explain how having an ISO-3166 code means that
you are immune from embargo.  Please also explain what having an ISO-3166
code has to do with the question of whether a corresponding "government"
should control the corresponding TLD.  Do you believe that all ccTLDs should
be controlled by a national government somewhere?  Do you also apply that
logic to uninhabited territories which have them, such as .cc?

> If Verisign cannot deliver that because of US laws, then
> ICANN, as responsible stewards of an international Internet,
> should look for a non-US contractor to run the root.

ICANN has no authority to re-delegate that contract, which is between
Verisign and the DoC directly, and does not involve ICANN.

- --
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 22:42:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I only hope that Danny is calling for elections to meet the calendar or
> because he has been solicited for a position that he feels has a
> conflict.

  Same here.

>
>
> While I understand that the positions must come from within our
> organization;  I would rather we do a placement search and then a
> popular election.

  That would be a violation of the GA rules I believe.  Ergo a known
quantity would seem a more wise idea.

>
>
> We really do not need a popular couple of folks we need folks who are
> good at this kind of thing.

  And there are quite a few in the GA.

>
>
> We also need to pay them.

  Absolutely.  But first we need a budget.  BTW, I thought you were
in charge of the fundraising for the GA?  How's that going Eric?

>
>
> Don't jump down my throat these are just comments for thought early on
> in the process.

  Interesting and good thoughts.  Thank you for them.

>
>
> Eric
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:40:44 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

> Perhaps, but a quick search turns up many .cu web sites. To my mind,

To my mind, the Cuba embargo is not as simple as the Iraqi one, and I would
not jump to the conclusion that there is a problem with .cu until I have
parsed all of the relevant regulations.

The Cuba embargo exempts a large number of transactions relating to
cultural, scientific, and other types of exchanges.  It is nowhere near as
absolute as other embargoes, and I did not raise anything having to do with
Cuba in any of my examples.

But back on your previous point, you said that the Iraqis should run their
own TLD.  Now, why do you believe the .iq TLD should be re-delegated, and
who do you propose it should be re-delegated to. Because, at the moment, it
is most certainly not delegated to Iraqis.

Justifying illegal behavior is one thing.  But going a step further and
proposing we actually take something AWAY from an American company and give
it to Iraq is, frankly, an astounding position for you to take.

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 01:16:02 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

- --------------298CE2B7311D2FEDD41B879A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Not this post of Joseph's in particular, but in general there seems to
be some confusion here as to the relevant law. There are two aspects
involved, which are (a) import/export regulations that relate to particular
types of goods and services, whether they are under the jurisdiction
of Commerce or Defense, etc; and (b) proscriptions on doing business
with country X at all, without regard to the nature of the goods or
services (there also being, of course, humanitarian exceptions).

A page of mine at http://www.cerebalaw.com/export.htm has links to
good Import/Export sources, and having once been General Counsel
to a small company that had a lot of foreign sales, I got to be quite
familiar with them.  Technically, everything that ships out of this
country needs an export license (and that includes mere information
- -- I cannot file a patent application in a foreign country for a client
without having an export license), and the way the proscribed countries
show up in those regs is that as to them, you just can't get an export
license (these are generally also the ones that are under the jurisdiction
of Defense rather than Commerce,e.g., crypto systems are "weapons"
and hence are controlled by Defense.).

(The goods I dealt with were those laser pointers presently being
used by the Special Forces to pinpoint targets for bombing, and
also those night vision glasses that give you those green pictures.)

Point is, whether or not embargoes against Cuba should be dropped
(yes they should -- that whole "sanctions' theory has been proven
over again and again not to work) and that kind of thing, have nothing
whatever to do with what the status of the law is right now, as to
doing business with "terrorist" countries. It must be ensured that those
laws as they now exist are obeyed.

Treaties are doable. GATT and the TRIPS agreement, the Uruguay
Round, and all that, show that in a treaty context involving a real,
living, breathing government, rather than some presumptive,
upstart creator of its own laws, and the devil take the hindmost,
accords can be reached, and where it has to, the U.S. can be
quite accommodating.  (We now have this dumb thing called the
provisional patent application, which got into U. S. law by way
of those treaties, and hundreds of foreign copyright owners (who
happen mostly to have been the French) whose registrations had
been lost under U. S. law, were given the opportunity to have
those copyrights reinstated.)

Let us not judge the U. S. on the basis of ICANN. In particular, the
ICANN pretense to be making international law by its various "policies"
needs to be crushed -- its role in that area is simply to obey U. S. law.
It lacks the power to "be more international" as Joseph requests.

William S. Lovell

Joseph wrote:

> Hi Dr. John Berryhill,
>
> I'm afraid I do not know enough nor have enough history of subject to answer
> these questions.
> >From a layman position, I think ICANN should be more international than what
> it is currently legally binded to.
>
> >>> 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?
> *** My personal position is the rights of individuals. But that is a
> different story. Suffice to say that I feel that there are room for
> improvements in the current UDRP.
>
> >>> 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.
> *** From a legal aspect this is true.
>
> 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

- --------------298CE2B7311D2FEDD41B879A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Not this post of Joseph's in particular, but in general there seems to
<br>be some confusion here as to the relevant law. There are two aspects
<br>involved, which are (a) import/export regulations that relate to particular
<br>types of goods and services, whether they are under the jurisdiction
<br>of Commerce or Defense, etc; and (b) proscriptions on doing business
<br>with country X <i>at all</i>, without regard to the nature of the goods
or
<br>services (there also being, of course, humanitarian exceptions).
<p>A page of mine at <A HREF="http://www.cerebalaw.com/export.htm">http://www.cerebalaw.com/export.htm</A> has links to
<br>good Import/Export sources, and having once been General Counsel
<br>to a small company that had a lot of foreign sales, I got to be quite
<br>familiar with them.&nbsp; Technically, everything that ships out of
this
<br>country needs an export license (and that includes mere information
<br>-- I cannot file a patent application in a foreign country for a client
<br>without having an export license), and the way the proscribed countries
<br>show up in those regs is that as to them, you just can't <i>get</i>
an export
<br>license (these are generally also the ones that are under the jurisdiction
<br>of Defense rather than Commerce,e.g., crypto systems are "weapons"
<br>and hence are controlled by Defense.).
<p>(The goods I dealt with were those laser pointers presently being
<br>used by the Special Forces to pinpoint targets for bombing, and
<br>also those night vision glasses that give you those green pictures.)
<p>Point is, whether or not embargoes against Cuba should be dropped
<br>(yes they should -- that whole "sanctions' theory has been proven
<br>over again and again not to work) and that kind of thing, have nothing
<br>whatever to do with what the status of the law is <i>right now</i>,
as to
<br>doing business with "terrorist" countries. It must be ensured that
those
<br>laws as they now exist are obeyed.
<p>Treaties are doable. GATT and the TRIPS agreement, the Uruguay
<br>Round, and all that, show that in a treaty context involving a real,
<br>living, breathing <i>government,</i> rather than some presumptive,
<br>upstart creator of its own laws, and the devil take the hindmost,
<br>accords can be reached, and where it has to, the U.S. can be
<br>quite accommodating.&nbsp; (We now have this dumb thing called the
<br>provisional patent application, which got into U. S. law by way
<br>of those treaties, and hundreds of foreign copyright owners (who
<br>happen mostly to have been the French) whose registrations had
<br>been lost under U. S. law, were given the opportunity to have
<br>those copyrights reinstated.)
<p>Let us not judge the U. S. on the basis of ICANN. In particular, the
<br>ICANN pretense to be making international law by its various "policies"
<br>needs to be crushed -- its role in that area is simply to obey U. S.
law.
<br>It lacks the power to "be more international" as Joseph requests.
<p>William S. Lovell
<p>Joseph wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hi Dr. John Berryhill,
<p>I'm afraid I do not know enough nor have enough history of subject to
answer
<br>these questions.
<br>>From a layman position, I think ICANN should be more international
than what
<br>it is currently legally binded to.
<p>>>> Then would you agree to reversing the result of every UDRP decision
<br>where a non-US registrant was found to have engaged in cybersquatting
on the
<br>basis of a US trademark?
<br>*** My personal position is the rights of individuals. But that is
a
<br>different story. Suffice to say that I feel that there are room for
<br>improvements in the current UDRP.
<p>>>> It would seem to be a relative no-brainer that if ICANN is going
to
<br>engage itself in establishing a policy relating to aspects of national
civil
<br>law, then ICANN should CERTAINLY have a higher priority for establishing
a
<br>policy relating to the CRIMINAL law of the United States.
<br>*** From a legal aspect this is true.
<p>regards,
<br>- Joseph
<br>==============
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------298CE2B7311D2FEDD41B879A--

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:44:41 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Hi William S. Lovell,

>>> Let us not judge the U. S. on the basis of ICANN.
*** No one is judging the U.S. of A.

>>> In particular, the ICANN pretense to be making international law by its
various "policies" needs to be crushed -- its role in that area is simply to
obey U. S. law. It lacks the power to "be more international" as Joseph
requests.
*** Yes, but shouldn't one aim to be better than what one is restricted to?
Shouldn't a bird trapped in a cage wish to break free?  In Afghanistan,
women has absolutely no (very little) rights under the legal system.  Should
the women, under the existing law, subject themselves to such condition (and
just accept "life")?  History is full of lessons of "being better than one
is restricted to".  I am with the opinion that, although, currently
restricted by the law, one should think about what should be better.  To
minimize any mis-communication, I would like to stress that you are
referring to the present, while I am hopeful for the future.

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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:28:36 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 1:45 AM

BTW Joseph, your method of quoting sux.

|> > Let us not judge the U. S. on the basis of ICANN.
|> 
|> No one is judging the U.S. of A.
|> 
|> > In particular, the ICANN pretense to be making 
|> > international law by its various "policies" needs to 
|> > be crushed -- its role in that area is simply to
|> > obey U. S. law. It lacks the power to "be more 
|> > international" as Joseph requests.
|> 
|> Yes, but shouldn't one aim to be better than what one is 
|> restricted to? Shouldn't a bird trapped in a cage wish 
|> to break free?  

The three most useless words in the English language are, "should", "could",
and "would". Of those three, "should" is the most over-used. Items referred
to by those three words usually have nothing at all to do with reality.
Saying that you could/should/would do something always means that you
haven't done anything. Usually, it is because you can't do anything. Which
is the case here.

The bird in the cage that you mention would only get eaten by the cat. Cages
work both ways. I have a neighbor that protects their cats by caging their
Macaw (it's better armed than the cat and has a nastier disposition [it
actually hunts cats]). Now, can we drop analogies yet? They never work and
always confuse/side-track the discussion.

|> In Afghanistan, women has absolutely no (very little) 
|> rights under the legal system.  Should the women, under 
|> the existing law, subject themselves to such condition 
|> (and just accept "life")?  History is full of lessons 
|> of "being better than one is restricted to".

History is full of one major lesson, such laws and inequities are only
changed once blood is spilled. It never happens peacefully. The requisite
sacrifice is happening as we write this. Let us hope that it is sufficient
for the Afghanii women. What we are discussing here is not quite of the same
catagory. Such thinking is sloppy, at best. Have you always been this
muddle-headed or are you only grand-standing?

|> I am with the opinion that, although, currently restricted 
|> by the law, one should think about what should be better.  
|> To minimize any mis-communication, I would like to stress 
|> that you are referring to the present, while I am hopeful 
|> for the future.

Such ineffectual day-dreaming is exactly why we are in this mess in the
first place. Some yokels thought that they were above the law. Then the US
Congress stepped in and the Green Paper was published. Never mind that it is
these same yokels that run the ICANN now. They need to be reined some more,
according to law. They still don't get that they are not above the law and
that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse.

ICANN needs to confine itself to the boundaries determined by the laws that
define its jurisdiction and it needs to quit pretending to the throne.
- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:33:29 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: John Berryhill [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:39 AM

|> That's nonsense.  Yes, there are all sorts of questions about various
|> anti-terrorism measures.  NOBODY, including the ACLU, has 
|> questioned the
|> constitutionality of OFAC regulations.  That's just a plain 
|> nutty argument.

John, aside from the OFAC link, do you have a sufficiently long list that
could be published such that those of us whom are US citizens can make
requisite complaint to relevent representitives? A list of relevent
authorities would also be nice.
- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:55:10 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Roeland,

While your comments on this thread seem a little absolute, which one could take
issue with I have a more simple question. First and explanation.  Since the BoD
recently adopted appropriate language for procedural hangups I invoke the same.
I believe we have a new group of initials to refer to the BoD (B) and Staff (S)
when they seemingly act is concert.

So my question is;  If the BS functioned appropriately would you be willing to
allow them to expand into some of the areas of Jesephs' suggestions?

Clearly we need guidance in those areas who should do it?

Eric

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:58:57 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:55 AM
|> 
|> While your comments on this thread seem a little absolute, 
|> which one could take issue with I have a more simple 
|> question. First and explanation.  Since the BoD
|> recently adopted appropriate language for procedural hangups 
|> I invoke the same. I believe we have a new group of 
|> initials to refer to the BoD (B) and Staff (S)
|> when they seemingly act in concert.
|> 
|> So my question is;  If the BS functioned appropriately would 
|> you be willing to allow them to expand into some of the areas 
|> of Josephs' suggestions?

I think that my point is that they can't and I have nothing to do with that.
It's a matter of law. Joseph has even less ability to do something, unless
he is a US citizen living abroad.

|> Clearly we need guidance in those areas who should do it?

Obviously, it is the job of those failing to do the job now, therefore the
next best thing is the USG itself.
- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:55:59 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] dotBIZ

Two have mentioned privately that my dotBIZ reply mail does not resolve
half of the time.

Is it the obvious?

I find that hard to believe because I checked recently and could not
find a GODBLESS.BIZ from Leah's group.  So why would there be a
conflict?

Of course I will have to stop using my GodBless because someone will now
register it with Leah and half of my email will go to an unscrupulous
alternative cybersquatter ;-}

Hum a cross-root UDRP????

I make light here and have no real care, as far as my used names are
concerned; but I do feel bad for anyone who needs their name and is
treated poorly.  Who is our UDRP TF rep anyway?

How can we possibly not have a TF on this issue???

Sorry for shouting, I guess I better log off and go to Church.

GodBless
Eric

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:06:14 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

on 11/17/01 7:21 PM, Sandy Harris at [email-masked] wrote:

> Should we block, for example, www.rawa.net, the Revolutionary Assoc
> of Women of Afghanistan?

Try again. RAWA.ORG is not registered in an embargoed country, neither is it
a terrorist website. It raises money from a base in Pakistan, to support,
amongst other things, refugee camps and hospitals providing medical
treatment for Afghan women and children denied under the Taliban rule.

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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:23:14 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

on 11/18/01 12:39 PM, John Berryhill at [email-masked] wrote:

> If the Iraqis want a domain name and they don't want
> to induce a violation of US law, then they can go register with a European
> registrar.  It is that simple.

Actually no, they can't necessarily. While European nations are indeed free
to trade without fear of prosecution under US embargoes.
http://www.eurunion.org/news/press/1998-2/pr43-98.htm, the EU has stated its
support most emphatically for the US Coalition for the War on Terrorism, and
numerous new regulations are being introduced in that respect every day by
its Council.  The EU Council has requested the UN give consideration to any
measure facilitating mutual assistance with third countries concerning the
prevention of terrorism, and even before Sep 11, the EU had been pro-active
in setting up the first International Criminal Court. Clearly the EU does
recognize the need for developing international laws for certain crimes,
such as crimes against humanity etc., which the sale of domain names to
terrorists actually promotes.
http://www.eurunion.org/news/press/1998-2/pr40-98.htm

In relation to specific trade sanctions in force in the 15 EU member
nations, these are imposed not only by individual government decisions, but
also by United Nations Security Council Resolutions. For example, I believe
the laser guns Bill cites, are restricted from being exported from the UK to
all destinations worldwide, in other words, no export license could be
obtained by a UK business for any reason, regardless of US federal
regulations or UN sanctions. Equally, if the UN lifts sanctions against a
country, and an EU member nation does not have its own national laws in
place against that country, then yes, that country is free to trade,
regardless of what US Federal law may states.

The documentation is immense, so I do not know specifically whether selling
technology of the DNS kind to IRAQ by any one of the ICANN accredited
European Registrars is lawful or not, but as stated above, it would be very
surprising if either the UN, European Council or any government of the EU's
member nations condoned such a step if the US stated it wished such activity
to stop and indeed, enforced such steps under existing US law. That part is
simple I agree.

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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:18:22 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On 07:28 18/11/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:
>[joseph]
>|> To minimize any mis-communication, I would like to stress
>|> that you are referring to the present, while I am hopeful
>|> for the future.
>
>Such ineffectual day-dreaming is exactly why we are in this mess in the
>first place.

Roeland, you are a bit harsh to a newcomer Domain Name owner who tries to 
bring a global (i.e. non_US) point of view across.

The reason many of us are here, myself included, is exactly our hopes and 
fears about what future internet regulation (governance) is going to bring 
us, exactly *because* we have seen the hijack attempts in the past and the 
arrogance of the people involved. Yes, you are right, they are still there 
and they are not likely to go away.
Globally, we are standing on a crossroads and the direction Net governance 
takes now will determine what forces will dominate it in the foreseeable 
future.

Realistically, under current contracts,  Domain Name Holders don't own 
their Domains.
Should these contracts be accepted as "Law"?  Is anyone who 
pleads/strives  for better Registrant rights an ineffectual daydreamer?

IDNO members like Joseph, who politely present their point of view 
should  (sorry,  "need to" ) be treated with courtesy. This Qaddafi thread 
is actually informative.

>  Some yokels thought that they were above the law. Then the US
>Congress stepped in and the Green Paper was published. Never mind that it is
>these same yokels that run the ICANN now. They need to be reined some more,
>according to law. They still don't get that they are not above the law and
>that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse.
>
>ICANN needs to confine itself to the boundaries determined by the laws that
>define its jurisdiction and it needs to quit pretending to the throne.

Roeland, you just substituted "should"  with "needs to"   :-)
Ineffectual daydreaming?

- --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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #858
************************