[governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Danny,

Interesting as it may be, the position of the US General accounting
office is based on the assumption that the USG owns the Internet.  I had
a post on my blog this morning about that:
http://patrick.vandewalle.net/2005/11/07/who-owns-the-internet/

The Internet is a network of networks and while the USG does own some
parts of it, NSFNET and its sequels,  the military network and possibly
the academic one, it does not own that of MCI or the European academic
network, etc. So the question is if the USG can enforce its
contracts/MoU with ICANN beyond the networks it owns. I cannot sell your
house, because it is not mine. Similarily, the USG cannot enforce its
contracts on other networks than its own.  So, ICANN should not consider
the USG contracts are binding outside the narrow scope of USG-owned
networks.

Saying that the US owns the Internet because it financed some of its
developments would be like pretending that the EU should have oversight
on each and any GSM telephone network in the world because the standards
were developed with EU research money, or that the Finnish governement
holds a right on every installation of Linux because it was developed by
a Finnish student on the Helsinki university computers with governement
money.

I think one should not care about the (un)willingness of the USG to
agree to a transfer. Its current position is just an abuse of power,
with no legal grounds. If there is any doubt, ICANN should have the case
settled in court.

Best regards,

Patrick Vande Walle



Danny Younger said the following  on 07/11/2005 16:19:

>In early 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office was
>asked to review the relationship between the
>Department of Commerce and ICANN, and to answer (among
>other questions) "whether the Department of Commerce
>has the legal authority to transfer control of the
>authoritative root server to ICANN".
>
>Their reply is posted at
>http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
>
>While Civil Society may request that such a transfer
>be initiated, be forewarned that even if there was a
>preliminary acquiesence to the request, the
>complications of the U.S. legal system might long
>forestall the request becoming a reality (all the
>moreso as it will probably require legislative action
>to override property issues, and the current sense of
>  
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance