<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Parminder,<div><br><div><div>On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 26 August 2012 10:48 AM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org" type="cite"><div><div><div>I was specifically asking for a reference to where any
"ICANN apologist claim[s] so" so I can understand their
rationale. Your statement is rather bald, so presumably you
can back it up. I'm asking for a reference. Can you provide
one?</div></div></div></blockquote>I dont want to dig up all emails and get into a long
discussion on you said this, what i meant was this and so on........
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>So, I gather you choose not to back up your assertion. Useful to know for future discussions.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org" type="cite"><div><div>If you assume that the "wishes of the US state" are codified
in corporate law, I suppose so, but this seems to be a bit of
a reach to me.</div></div></blockquote>
Why? Doest US state make the corporate law?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but corporate law is a tiny subset of the "wishes of the US state".</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org" type="cite"><div><div> For example, my impression the USG wasn't particularly
excited about the creation of .XXX yet ICANN seems to have
gone ahead and allowed for its creation, no?</div></div></blockquote>
How many time can this one example to used to show the purity of the
US state... </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Until it is demonstrated it is inapplicable, I suspect it will continue to be used. There are others, e.g., processing requests from countries in which it is illegal (as in criminal felony, decades in jail, millions in fines) for US citizens to do business.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org" type="cite"><div><div><div>As for abiding by the constraints of executive
authority, ICANN, at least in theory, abides by policies
created by a bottom-up open process, not by the dictates
from the USG executive branch.</div></div></div></blockquote>
In theory, the hierarchy between the two above kinds of control over
the ICANN is clear. US laws and general US authority will prevail
whether they have exercised it in any strong manner till now or not.
And this is not acceptable. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you say so. I eagerly await a full proposal of your alternative that describes an operational entity that exists above nation-state law.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">BTW, why dont I get the answer to the main question which started
this thread, and is in its subject line. <b>What happens if the US
court, having accepted it as a maintainable case, declares .xxx
registry agreement to be in contravention of US laws</b>? <b>Does
the ICANN system with its chimera of global legitimacy simply
unravels that moment? How do you see such a scenario?</b> </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Despite you being seemingly unwilling to answer my simple question, I'll take a stab at this from an operational perspective (since I'm not a lawyer):</div><div><br></div><div>If a court were to decide .XXX violated US law (somehow), it could direct ICANN to remove it. However, ICANN, as the IANA functions operator, can't do the job (at least usefully -- the most ICANN can do unilaterally is remove the Whois entry for XXX, but I doubt many people would care). ICANN can at most send a request for a de-delegation to DoC for authorization. Assuming DoC authorizes that request, it would then go to Verisign who would likely remove the entry from the root zone (since DoC authorized it, they'd be silly not to). The XXX-less zone would then get signed and put onto the distribution master where the root server operators would pull it down and serve it to the world's resolvers. </div><div><br></div><div>I suspect where things might get a bit complicated is in the DoC authorization step. My guess is that DoC would not authorize the request as it would be done outside of documented policies. This in turn would likely result in the lawsuit being redirected to DoC. Assuming the USG allowed the suit to proceed and the judgement was against the DoC, DoC could be forced to authorize the request.</div><div><br></div><div>It would then run into the other complicated bit -- whether or not the root server operators accept and serve the XXX-less zone. Opinions differ.</div><div><br></div><div>Does ICANN's legitimacy unravel if this were to occur? Not really, IMHO. The illusion that some (including yourself, I gather) have ICANN is actually in control of anything other than providing a venue in which consensus policies are derived and implemented might unravel, but that would (again, IMHO) be a good thing.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org" type="cite"><div>I figure when you are talking about mucking about with a
working albeit imperfect global infrastructure upon which
people, nations, and economies are increasingly dependent, you
need a bit more than "but the current system is undemocratic!".</div></blockquote>
All my political and democratic sensibilities make me feel that your
sentence above is self contradictory. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Then you may need to adjust either your sensibilities or your perception.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">You say that Internet has
become too important an issue to subject to the democratic criterion
!? </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Nope. I'm saying pretty much exactly the opposite. The Internet has become too important to go mucking about with before exposing exactly how and why you're going to be mucking about to the people who are going to be affected by that mucking about.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br></div></body></html>