[governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?

[JFC Morfin]

Dominique,
do you know if they were/are jailed in Guantanamo?

Never mind what these people actually are/did

1) they should be protected by diplomatic immunity (since they never
hiden who they were and were they operated) until proved to be actual
terrorists by an international court (what did not prevent the US to
put to jail or to expulse them).

2) they assume a national public service: that service should have
been continued to the benefit of Iraquis people and to all the people
accessing their hosts. Every possibility should have been investigated
to that end, including a temporary management by ICANN wich is
accountable of the stability of the _entire_ DNS CLASS "IN"
(ICANN/NTIA).

jfc

2012/6/27, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu>:
> David,
>
> Beyond some wandering, I think we agree. The personal destiny of the .iq
> registry managers doesn't seem related to an IANA abuse, neither from
> USG, nor from ICANN. Ok on that precise point. BTW, it was the sense of
> my first post on the topic.
> But - I wonder why - I cannot help but to imagine may be sort of...
> coincidental relations between the country designated by the .iq ccTLD,
> the Palestinian origin of the registry managers and the cruelty of their
> trials and sentences.
> And the global impression is not at the advantage of the US, I'm sad to
> tell you such a thing. At the contrary, it seems to be a stone on the
> increasing militarization of the Internet.
> The America the world liked, the one of the Founding fathers, sister of
> the European Enlightenments, is another one.
>
> @+, best, Dominique
>
>
> Le 26/06/12 22:29, David Conrad a écrit :
>> Dominique,
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote:
>>> Sorry for the ellipsis, David. The .IQ/Elashi brothers case is simply
>>> showing, imho, that as we can observe diverse laws in diverse countries.
>> No argument.  My confusion here stems from the fact that we were talking
>> about the USG "oversight" role with respect to root zone management.  My
>> understanding of the .IQ case (without commenting on whether there was a
>> miscarriage of justice regarding the Elashi brothers) was that the USG
>> "oversight" role was uninvoked because the request got stuck in the IANA
>> processes, specifically with difficulties trying to establish the wishes
>> of the Internet community, prior to the USG "oversight" role being called
>> upon.
>>
>>> In our scope, the case shows that DNS architecture is also a very
>>> political game.
>> While I agree that the DNS has become very political, I'm unsure how the
>> .IQ case shows this. The fact that the Elashi brothers were the
>> administrative contacts for .IQ seems (as far as I can tell) coincidental
>> to the difficulties they ran into. I figure the .HT case is far more
>> interesting in the context of Internet Governance as it suggest the need
>> for oversight. However, as mentioned, both of these were before my time at
>> IANA so I may not have a full understanding.
>>
>> 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