[governance] US v John Doe & Others [#RIRs #Botnets #IP Addresses #extraterritorial jurisdictional application]

[McTim]

Sala,

On 11/26/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Warm Greetings from Fiji! Trusting that you are all well and in excellent
> health.
>
> There was an interesting blog by *Milton Mueller, M. Van Eeten and B.
> Kuerbis* on the IGP Blogsite that I read today, see:
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/11/23/4944811.html
>
> The Post Indictment Protective Order pursuant to 21 U.S.C  issued by the
> Honorable William H Pauly III United States District Judge Southern
> District of New York see para 13, page 7 and 8
> http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/ProtectiveOrder.pdf
> What is of interest in the Order is that it mentions all the RIRs that are
> served Notice have to comply with the instructions within the Judgment.
>
> I am not surprised that the Dutch Court reacted the way (all primary
> sources documents are on the blogsite) because if the numbers are assigned
> from IANA (http://www.iana.org/numbers) it follows that connection (thread)
> enables the Honorable William H Pauly III to exert his powers over all the
> RIRs.

I'm not sure it 'follows' at all.

The IANA allocates Internet resources to a RIR.  My understanding is
that It also delegates responsibility for those resources to that RIR.
 AFAIK, there is no mechanism by which the IANA can revoke (or lay
claim to) the allocated resources.

A judge (clueful or not) asserting his courts authority over global IP
resources doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for managing
the allocated resources lies with the RIR and not with IANA.

In contrast to parminder's view, I think greater governmental
interference in current processes is not helpful. Instead we should
draw them in to the current processes as an equal stakeholder, which
is already happening in the RIRs BTW, witness the AfriNIC Governmental
Working Group meeting a few days ago in Yaounde, the RIPE Roundtables
and Cooperation Working Group, etc.

It's NOT just the USA that wants to assert authority either.  We had a
discussion on list recently about the Indian government wanting to
assert some authority over IPv6 resources.

We can make an international treaty regarding CIRs, but I see no
possible political reality whereby the US would sign such a treaty.
It would be like the Kyoto Protocol, and just further cement the
status quo.

I've lots more to say, but my UPS is beeping which reminds me that the
most critical CIR (electricity) IS something that governments can and
should work on.  In the developing world, we would be far better off
Internet-wise if governments would focus on supply of reliable power
instead of names and numbers.


Reminds me of:

Wikipedia: I know everything!
Google: I have everything!
Facebook: I know everybody
Internet: Without me you all nothing.
Electricity: Keep talking bitches ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t