<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font><br>
On Monday 04 June 2012 01:17 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wolfgang:
One of the strength of the regulatory environment of the DNS system (as we have this discussed in our Summer School) is that it is based on a diversity of bilateral agreements which specifiy clearly what the contracting parties can do and can not do. With other words, if a problem appears which affects ICANN and/or any TLD Registry one has first to look into the bilateral contract. When Esther Dyson chaired the ICANN Board, this was called "regulating by contracting" and indeed, the diversity of the bilateral contracts give the whole system an additional stability.
wolfgang
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Wolfgang<br>
<br>
You would know that the nature of contractual relationships between
private entities has very little bearing, if any, on enforcement of a
large majority of national laws. And it is the possible enforcement of
such laws of US on ICANN that we have been speaking about. ( The.xxx
decision being currently examined in a US court on anti-trust grounds
is a case in point.)<br>
<br>
I also have no idea what you mean by "</font>if a problem appears
which affects ... any TLD Registry one has first to look into the
bilateral contract.
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> ". When all the .com based
websites were seized by US gov on IP related grounds what contract got
seen??? No contract mattered, did it. The websites simply disappeared.
<br>
<br>
For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual
websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain
names, like cctlds, isnt it. (If in doubt about this, pl read the blog
by the CEO of Canadian Internet Registration Authority.) For us outside
the US, that is bad enough.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, I am not completely sure what is the impact of the
recent securitisation of the DNS/root zone with regard to possible
domain seizures and other interferences, but I suspect that there are
indeed some important implications of it. It is the lack of capacity
outside well funded North based IG spaces that we dont have such
required analysis and information available widely. However, what
little I
have gleaned from different sources makes me feel not too comfortable.
Those who seem to know
about these things may share further information.... parminder </font><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>