[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

[David Conrad]

Norbert,

On Jan 26, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> In the Rojadirecta case, the US government wanted to take action
> against a Spanish company that was acting in a way that was legal in
> Spain.

But in violation of the law in the US.

> But rojadirecta.com needs entries in a dns zone (specifically,
> the .com zone)

Why did Rojadirecta need a name in .COM and thereby subject themselves to US law? There are a number of TLDs that clearly are not subject to US law, including .ES.

> In
> that kind of situation, I'd definitely expect the US government to at
> least consider serving a warrant intended to disable .gratis to whoever
> in their view is in charge of maintaining the root zone! 

Why hasn't the USG removed entries for .KP, .SY, .IR, etc?

> And I'm not aware of any reason to assume that the US
> government wouldn't expect to have at least the same kind of rights with
> regard to the root zone that they successfully exercised with regard
> to the .com zone.  

Any reason other than the fact the USG hasn't treated the root zone the same as .COM in the past and if they did so, they would be undermining pretty much every position they've taken on Internet governance since the creation of the white/green paper?

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