<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 01 September 2012 03:14 AM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B5DE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Any law from ANY
jurisdiction constraining or dictating ICANN’s action would
have global effect, insofar as the global Internet relies on
ICANN to administer the DNS.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br>
Milton, In face of clear facts to the contrary, you continue to
claim that EU's, India's, Ghana's, all of 192 government's,
jurisdictions have similar implication and impact on ICANN. I dont
think I need to labour to disprove this patently absurd proposition.
<br>
<br>
But just to continue with the present discussion on the .xxx case,
even if the ICM registry was
* not* US based, the porn industry majors could/ would have brought
the case against ICANN for instituting .xxx (since the registry
would of course have serviced domain name demands from the US among
others). ICANN would still be forced to defend itself in the case,
and if it lost the case to annul or modify .xxx agreement. It does
not take a political scientist to understand that the same is not
true vis a vis the jurisdiction of any other of 192 countries. Let
someone bring up a similar case, say, in a court in Bangladesh, And
you will find ICANN etc merrily laughing at the impertinence of it.
This is inequity, Milton, but you dont seem to be trained to
recognise it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B5DE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> The only unique thing about the US
is the IANA contract. Please try to concentrate your fire on
that.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br>
IANA contract is a problem, but special application of US law and
jurisdiction on all actions of ICANN is at least as big a problem.
You cannot banish the 'problem' merely becuase you dont have a
response to it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B5DE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> And if your solution is to have
192 governments share that power, I suggest it will be a
long time before most people involved in Internet matters
support you.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br>
One, you say above that ICANN is already equally subject to the
jurisdiction of all the 192 governments. Are you not therefore
contradicting yourself here? And if it indeed is already subject to
192 jurisdiction, even efficiency, since you dont recognise issues
of equity and democracy, would demand that there be some forum to
help harmonise these 192 jurisdictional claims on ICANN, especially
the world gets more and more into the digital thick. Otherwise we
are in a rather unsustainable and dangerous situation, dont you
think!<br>
<br>
Secondly, I have heard similar arguments in India against Indian
democratic system and I completely understand the sentiment - it is
better to have a dictator rather than be governed by the '550
tyrants' sitting in the parliament. Do you also believe/ propose so
about the US democratic system? Just looking for some consistency
here. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>