[governance] "Oversight"

[David Conrad]

Fouad,

On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> Let me reword this. ICANN stakeholders have to take down domains.
> [bodog.com takedown by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement]
> why, because ICANN falls under California Law or simply put US jurisdiction:

It doesn't matter what law ICANN falls under. As you're aware, the .COM top-level domain is operated by Verisign, a US corporation. Verisign obviously must abide by US law. I presume the Verisign lawyers ensured the takedown request(s) made by US ICE were lawful.  While it is true that ICANN and Verisign have entered into a contract regarding the operation of .COM, that is irrelevant. ICANN has no control over the content of the .COM zone (or any other zone, other than the ones it operates like icann.org of course).

Technically, because of the way the DNS operates, there is simply nothing ICANN can unilaterally do about these situations (for good or ill), regardless of what legal venue or law (or treaty or whatever) ICANN or any possible successor operates in.  It is unfortunate that this is not better understood.

> Ignorance is what it is.

Sorry, ignorance of what and on whose part?

> ICANN is second party Internet space manager under a contract with

> NTIA, under US law jurisdiction, and should some other group or body

> be capable may be able to apply to future NTIA RFPs for managing the
> Internet address space.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

To my understanding, a number of other parties did bid on the IANA functions contract before the RFP was cancelled.  However, it appears you're co-mingling activities that pains have been taken (particularly with the rebid of the IANA functions contract) to separate.  The operation of the IANA functions is explicitly disallowed from participation in the setting of policy (see section C.2.5 of the RFP). The operator of the IANA functions (whoever it might be) is/will be contractually obligated to implement policies created by "interested and affected parties" (a term defined in section C.1.3 of that same document) and nothing else.  The setting of that policy is not part of any contract with NTIA.

> and please, stop twisting my words. ignorance is in the high
> expectations with these weak institutions, not as ignorance as
> individuals.

I'm confused as to how pointing out a technical inaccuracy and asking for clarification could be interpreted as twisting your words.

Regards,
-drc


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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