[governance] Meanwhile back at the ranch - Was Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Wed Sep 12 01:01:29 EDT 2012
Hi Parminder,
I would certainly like to see ICANN as an international organisation, and I
think from previous posts Avri would too.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 2012 may well go down in history as the year
that the internet collapse began and it’s not just the USA responsible.
Everywhere it seems under threat from unilateral government decisions,
corporate takedowns at the behest of the powerful rather than according to
any clear policy for such actions, security issues, the replacement of
internet protocols with dedicated apps in the mobile sector, and a host of
other cybersecurity, cybercrime, copyright and patent decisions. What we are
seeing is a swathe of unilateral government decisions and corporate
decisions without reference to common law, common sense, and common
interest.
The list goes on and on. South Korea and USA (and others) delivering
different court judgments on Apple/Samsung patents, websites being taken
down by a host of governments without notice or explanation and then being
reinstated without charges being laid, Paypal and others suspending payments
to Wikileaks, SOPA, PIPA, user data being hacked and released in response to
government measures aimed at personal data retention without warrant or
court order, and political censorship in many countries including countries
who would normally speak out against this.
End to end, it’s a mess. No that’s nothing to do with ICANN or IETF. And
probably nothing to do with Internet Governance Forum either which, if it
discusses any of these issues in detail, will probably only do so in the
corridors.
But it sure has a lot to do with Internet governance, and Internet
governance is in a mess.
Sorry to change the topic.
Ian Peter
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, parminder
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:04:27 +0530
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for
ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs
Avri and Ian,
Will weigh in with more responses to your and other's comments later on
when I have a little more time, but just to say for the present that;
Firstly, IANA function that US may or may not hand over to someone else, in
one issue. Another one, the main one in the present thread, is, whether IANA
function is voluntary abandoned or not by the US (your choice of what should
happen), ICANN as a US non profit would remain subject to all kinds of US
laws vis a vis all its activities and policies. As a part of the .xxx
judgement for instance, the courts can ask ICANN to revise all its domain
name policies to bring them in accordance with US anti trust and possibly
other laws (say IP related), in 'such a such', manner. ICANN would have no
option other than to do it right away. You will agree that with the .xxxx
case already been taken up, and its basic tenability also been accepted by a
court ruling, such an eventuality is quite possible. This issue is at quite
a different level than that of who exercises IANA authority, which you
address in your emails.
What is your response to this particular, i'd say, imminent, problem? How
is ICANN going to deal with it? With the .xxx case already in the court, and
many more expected in the present round of new gtlds, should ICANN not
already be ready for what is certainly going to happen sooner or later?
Secondly, if some kind of immunity for ICANN from US's domestic law through
some kind of international agreement is part of your response to the above,
and I may be being presumptuous in this regard, please note that Milton and
even Lee do not seem particularly sanguine about it; not just about the
likelihood that it would happen, but even of its desirability. They seem to
prefer that ICANN remains subject to US laws, to ensure that some kind of
public interest control is kept over it. What is your position on this?
I mention this because evidently, even leaving my and Riaz's position in
this thread of discussion out, there is much less general agreement on the
way to go ahead, that may appear on the surface. And the disagreement is not
just on the time frames involved or the path to follow, but, and this is
most significant to assert, also vis a vis the eventual desirable state of
affairs.
I understand that the mainstream view in the US, including but not just
limited to the 'establishment', is closer to that of Milton/ Lee's above
view. We know that EU also rejects the possibility of ICANN being subject to
no kind of jurisdiction what so ever. These facts will have to be kept in
mind.
Regards, parminder
On Wednesday 12 September 2012 04:02 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Glad to see these comments by Lee and Avri. Here is my original proposition
>
> I come back to my original position and perhaps the only one where we
> might get some agreement and also even the possibility of some action. The
> authorisation role is completely unnecessary, whether carried out by USA or
> UN or whatever. Please do not transfer it to another body just remove it.
> The authorisation is based on recommendations involving a set of very
> consultative and exhaustive procedures. Once the ICANN processes recommend a
> change after these consultations, let that be the final authorisation.
>
>
> I can perceive a situation where USA might actually accept that proposition,
> consistent with increasing independence of ICANN. I cant see a situation
> where they transfer their authorisation function to any other body.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>>
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> <mailto:avri at ella.com>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> , Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>> <mailto:avri at ella.com>
>> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:28:28 -0400
>> To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for
>> ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs
>>
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2012, at 17:33, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1) Free ICANN from hypothetical future USDOC/NTIA interference as Ian Peter
>>> suggested. Which would also free ICANN from any other government mucking
>>> around at that level, in a hypothetical future. Fine by me. Though I worry
>>> ever so slightly that the latest example of ICANN's immaturity (oh yeah we
>>> forgot to put in place a conflict of interest policy for folks about to
>>> launch a new ICANN-created market) is not the last example of ICANN proving
>>> in practice to be not really as grown up as ICANN, like most 14 year olds,
>>> claims it is. Still, the proud parent USG will be more inclined to want to
>>> let the organization grow up and graduate from needing a babysitter, than
>>> accept other's suggestions that they would be better parents. Still we can
>>> imagine...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is basically the option I opt for.
>>
>> First work to get ICANN to grow up and deserve to move out of the house.
>>
>> Then convince the parents and all the aunts and uncles that it is time for
>> ICANN to move out on the NTIA house because they are gown-up and have a
>> viable
>> life plan.
>>
>> I bet that if this state is reached, NTIA would even help. Just a guess, but
>> I'd bet.
>>
>> But first we ICANN folks (Staff, Board and Volunteers) gotta get a shit
>> together and grow up.
>> And start working on its life plan.
>>
>> I think progress is being made, but is it as good as we would like of course
>> not.
>> More time and participation is needed.
>>
>> I beleive it can happen.
>> In fact I expect that it eventually will.
>> I just have no idea how long eventually will take.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120912/603e1c9f/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list