[governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: [Members] US District Court for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Aug 4 00:51:16 EDT 2014
Lee
Two response to the below about what you see as mitigating circumstances
with regard to the anomaly of US holding jurisdictional control over
Internet's root :
One, that in other cases, good EU laws help the privacy situation in the
US, in what could be seen as an extra jurisdictional influence/
application. However, you are missing an important point here. There is
no cosmic force which ensures that good laws have greater flow and
impact across jurisdictions and bad laws, the opposite. No, it is not
that way. So how is it? Laws backed by jurisdictions that have market/
economic muscle have considerable degree of cross-jurisdictional
influence in today's closely connected world. There one political
influence in this way is directly linked to ones economic means. This, I
hope, you will agree is not a good thing. The best FoE and privacy laws
of say Ghana would have absolutely no cross jurisdictional impact.
Democracy, one of the most basic of human rights, is premised on
political equality of all people - one person, one vote, not one million
dollar, one vote, principle. So, the example of EU laws that you proffer
may perhaps delight a (democratically unthinking) EU mind, but it is not
like giving good leads to what would be a democratic and just global order.
On the second logic that you give, that ICANN under any jurisdiction
would be subject to national jurisdictional whims and vagaries:
One, the case being made is for ICANN to be subject to international
law and jurisdiction and not any national law/ jurisdiction. It is
rather much easier than most people make out here.
Second, US has one of the worst global record of dis-regarding global
opinion on matters that it sees as serving its national interest.
Therefore it is is any case one of the worst possible jurisdictions to
leave the Internet root in. Many people for instance have argued that
Switzerland would be a much better custodian, even in the interim as
international legal framework for the Internet's root is being evolved.
I consider the arguments that you are giving simply as lazy status
quo-ist arguments.
parminder
On Monday 04 August 2014 04:24 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> A few comments to wade in for a moment:
>
>
> - IGC co-founder YJ Park's excellent doctoral thesis some years back
> on 'ccTLDs between State and Market' provided quite a bit of info on
> that balance and its historical evolution by ccTLD. Of course there
> are many current sources of info as others have noted. Summarizing
> admittedly without doing new research myself, I think it would be
> fairer to say that by now most all ccTLDs have an accommodation with,
> even if they are not operated by, a government agency. And, ccTLDs are
> more or less market-oriented almost irrespective of the legal form of
> the operator.
>
>
> - Second point, not to speak ill of the heroic, but for the historical
> record it was a '97? Postel aka IANA aka ISOC back in the pre-ICANN
> days + International Trademark Association + ITU (et.al.) discussion
> which led to the abortive Geneva plans. At least to my eyes that was
> not quite the idyllic triumvirate for an alternate present of global
> Internet peace and harmony, if not for that dastardly USG intervention
> leading to ICANN's creation, that some may wistfully wish to recall.
> Since clearly intellectual property - management - was going to be
> part of that future, one way or another.
>
>
> Third point, Daniel is 1000% correct re Internet as an amalgam of
> interconnected private networks.
>
>
> Last point, legal - conflict of laws - over transborder data flows are
> far from a new phenomenon, rather they have been the subject of
> endless discussions, debates and more than a few treaties from the
> 1960s to the present.
>
> (And yes I am not a lawyer, but occasionally play one on the
> Internet; and ok worked and studied at the Max Planck Institut fuer
> Auslaendisches und Internationales Privatrecht back in my prehistoric
> doc student days.) That the data crosses the world on the Internet,
> does not hugely change the legal treatment of - someone's data in case
> of a legal conflict. So my pedantic review for those new to this:
>
>
> In general, domestic -commercial - law trumps international law,
> except in circumstances where - the state - has explicitly agreed to
> be bound by treaty obligations which it has pledged to uphold.
>
>
> In the case of data protection and privacy, generally speaking, it is
> European law and Eu directives which have the greatest
> international impact, as firms doing business in Europe must promise
> to protect data (on EU citizens) to the EU standard, wherever that
> data sits. For many of the biggest multinationals, managing data
> protection for EU citizens differently than they manage data on US or
> Asian residents is too much of a bother, so they just follow EU data
> protection law on whomever, wherever the data sits.
>
>
> Meaning, it is EU law's extraterritorial impact which lends us here in
> the US (or in Asia, Latin America, Africa) some slightly better data
> protection than might otherwise be the case.
>
>
> So in sum on this point...US is far from the only nation or region
> whose legal formulations have international impact; and second, as in
> the case of the blanket protection EU (data protection) law
> provides essentially to the rest of the world, it is not necessarily a
> bad thing when (domestic) laws do have extraterritorial impact.
>
>
> Bringing this all home to present circumstances of the Iran/Syria etc
> ccTLDs, it then follows that while moving ICANN's hq might be valued
> by many, without a new international treaty/international org
> agreement assuring certain areas of - international law - will
> override domestic preferences on certain classes/types of data in
> certain circumstances, it would have no impact in an analagous legal
> case, whether brought by US courts or those anywhere else. As I have
> said in other threads, there is nothing stopping courts in any other
> country from doing similarly stupid things as the US court just did.
> And similarly, essentially being lectured to by an ICANN tutorial on
> what ICANN - can and cannot do.
>
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Daniel Kalchev
> <daniel at digsys.bg>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 1, 2014 4:59 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: [Members] US District Court
> for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
> There are some interesting points, see my comments below.
>
>
> On 06.07.14 14:59, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> I thought this posting on another list may be useful to the
>> discussion on the IGC thread "Some more legal tangles for ICANN"
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [Members] US District Court for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
>> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:12 +0200
>> From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
>> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>> Reply-To: members at justnetcoalition.org
>> To: Member Just_Net_Coalition <members at justnetcoalition.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear JNC members,
>>
>> I thought I would wrap-up some facts and appreciation of a new case
>> where Plaintiffs have requested the US District Court for the
>> district of Columbia to turn to ICANN in order to seize whatever
>> money, property, credit IRAN and Syria have at ICANN. This is a
>> 'first', and worth to be looked at. Even though we are not legal
>> expert for US law, it is a very interesting issue to look at in an
>> Internet Governance perspective. Like anything related to US law and
>> jurisdiction, this might take years before a conclusion can be
>> reached - right now these judgements have been made by default as
>> Iran and Syria did not show up to the Court to defend themselves.
>> Still the case is showing that the asymmetric role of the US in terms
>> of Internet Governance is under critical challenge. It also shows
>> that much of what is related to the management of the root zone
>> (address book for the dot_something (.XYZ) is still missing
>> international definition and agreements. This is part of the fact
>> that IG has been into US hands, at least under the current form since
>> 1998 when ICANN was incorporated and when Jon Postel's job at the
>> root zone level was doing until then through IANA was also transfer
>> to ICANN under the same acronym. The new IANA became part of the
>> ICANN that same year Being an 'authority' and a 'department' of
>> ICANN, IANA has no bylaws but is under strict supervision of the US
>> Department of Commerce, through NTIA. Nothing can be change at the
>> root zone level for TLDs (gTLDs or ccTLDs) without the consent of the
>> US DoC. This helps to understand by the same token the role of IANA,
>> as a department of ICANN under a double US oversight, ICANN being
>> itself under contract with the US DoC.
>
> The primary issue in this case, is the decision by the USG to play
> political games, when they devised this "If you don't threat your
> citizens the way we want you to, we will let them sue you in the US
> under our own laws and will 'lawfuly' steal your property in the US.
> So, do as we say!".
> More powerful countries, such as Russia and Brasil (and to a lesser
> degree the "western democracy" countries) clearly told the US they do
> not care and they would subject US property in their respective area
> of control to about the same process (or worse).
>
> By creating this procedure, the US has prepared a lot of Pandora Boxes
> or Cans of Worms, waiting to be opened..
>
> As such, it is unfortunate, but quite understandable that some lawyer
> decided to drag ICANN into this mess. Understandable, because ICANN
> demonstrates it has lots of money to spend, is a public "shared
> irresponsibility" entity etc. Typical target for the typical US lawyer.
>
> For many reasons, the ICANN processes are a mess. This too is heaven
> for lawyers. The good news is the community is slowly clearing up the
> mess. The bad news is this is a very slow process (and ICANN is thus
> vulnerable for longer period). The other bad news is there are new
> incentives at ICANN that create even more weak points (even if
> attempts are made to design them properly).
>
> Out of everything else, IANA is the most interesting ... non-entity :)
>
>>
>> Some debate took place into the IGC list, and I would start from there.
>>
>> 1_
>> It started here
>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/
>>
>> 2_
>> A subscriber to the Civil Society Governance Caucus- IGC elist (Joly
>> McFie) wrote on June 25:
>>
>> "ICANN licenses the TLDs to different world governments who then are
>> permitted to appoint agents who sell the domain names and their
>> country specific internet suffixes to individuals, businesses and
>> organizations."
>>
>> 1/ Is this strictly true?
>> 2/ Does ICANN have a licence over ccTLDs?
>>
>> Some honorable subscribers of the IGC list reacted, among others:
>>
>> From Daniel Kalchev
>> /- most ccTLDs were delegated before ICANN was even an idea and most
>> ccTLDs managers are in fact not been appointed by any government./
>> /- After all, Internet was, is and will be an worldwide private network./
>>
>> From Wolfgang Kleinwächter:
>> /- This is nonsense. The author of this piece does not understand,
>> how the DNS works. /
>>
>> From McTim:
>> /- This won't go anywhere... Just a lawyer trying to get attention
>> for his case./
>> /- The fees paid to ICANN from Iran are exactly zero./
>> /
>> /
>> 3_
>> /
>> Then I posted On June 28 to the same IGC list the following information:
>>
>> Here are the 6 "Writs of Attachment
>> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dOI5puxRA9M3hweE9Eel9mVTQ/edit?pli=1>"
>> (5 vs IRAN; 1 vs Syria) as of June 24, 2014, notified to ICANN/IANA
>> by the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
>>
>>
>> So no "if" and no "apparently" as some doubted on the list.
>>
>> 4_
>> There would be postings with opposing views, ones saying that there
>> was nothing to worry about - ICANN would simply answer 'no'- and
>> others saying that this was critical issue for the first-level domain
>> for countries (ccTLD: country-code for Top Level Domain).
>> /
>
> This is good, as if we were all of the same opinion, sometimes we
> would be all totally wrong and there would be no balance to help in
> cases of disaster.
>
>> /
>>
>>
>> 5_
>> /
>> First, to be frank, I would say that I was a bit disappointed with
>> the comments on the IGC list. Some participants were supposedly able
>> to provide a better perspective on the case. For example, /
>> I believe that Wolfgang Kleinwächter, specially since he is working
>> at ICANN, should have provided a better answer to Joly's question.
>> "Non sense" means little if nothing. Sharing and distributing
>> understanding is always worth the effort.
>> /
>> /
>>
>> Daniel is quite right in his first assumption (Jon Postel did most of
>> the delegation work prior to the NewCo ICANN/IANA, established in
>> 1998). I would not be overly certain that the majority of ccTLDs
>> mangers are not being appointed by governments. That could be
>> investigated. A ccTLD being considered by governments as part of
>> their "national sovereignty" I would challenge this assertion.
>> National realities are often more subtile. More of a concern in my
>> view is Daniel's idea of a "*worldwide private network*". This has
>> little if no reality. Networks belong to Telecom Operators for the
>> largest part, some being *public*, some *private* (under governmental
>> regulations). Autonomous Systems do also belong to *public* or
>> *private* entities. What can be seen as *worldwide* is
>> "*interconnectivity*" - one can say that nobody owns the
>> Interconnectivity, something essentially untrue when we speak of
>> 'Internet'. A "*private*" thing? I do not see anything else than a
>> *public space* here, where *private* *interests* might indeed be
>> *dominant*.
>> /
>
> I fully understand Wolfgang's position here. The Can of Worms, Pandora
> Box etc issues cannot be ignored and sometimes it's better to not
> dwell unnecessarily into details.. publicly.
>
> However, it is a myth that Jon Postel himself made these delegations.
> The pre-ICANN delegation history is very complex and interesting to
> study -- for some reason the people in the know prefer to remain
> silent. Whatever the procedure was, when ICANN was (hastily)
> implemented, no proper process was followed to sort all this stuff out
> -- despite the community at that time held a lot of debates and a lot
> of good proposals were made.
>
> I am also amused, that we still discuss who controls ccTLDs. It is
> easy to check who appointed each and every ccTLD. Even if this
> requires arranging in person meetings and asking each of them
> individually (first hand information, that is). The ccTLDs are not
> that many and the people who run them are usually communicative.
>
> There are almost no exceptions, that at some point in time, national
> governments decided they should take over the respective ccTLD, for
> many different excuses, the most prevalent being "my cousin's son
> wants to play with this".
>
> The Internet is different from other public communication networks. It
> differs in many aspects, including both technical and governance --
> but all aspects share one common feature: everything on the Internet
> is designed to follow the normal human to human interaction model. In
> the Internet, everyone provides and consumes services to/from everyone
> else. There are sometimes middlemen, who one bright day discover the
> thing works without them, too -- no matter what they do. One could
> say, that the basic principle on which the Internet holds up together
> is the "mutual destruction fear". Like, for example: "Oh, I don't want
> those guys, so let's filter their SMTP server. Great, I won't hear
> from them ever again! Ugh, it turns out a friend of mine communicates
> with some friend of theirs and my friends says they won't talk to me
> anymore if I continue to be such an (insert appropriate cultural
> expression). So, even if I don't particularly like that guys, I am
> going to enable their SMTP server to talk to mine, because of my
> friend's needs. (or the service I provide to someone etc)"
>
> This "Networks belong to Telecom Operators for the largest part" is a
> myth, *they* want you to believe in.
> In reality, both your home network and your telecom's 'national
> backbone' have the same value for the Internet and for you. If your
> home network does not function, you can't access the Internet
> resources no matter how "great" the Telecom network is. It may also
> turn out, you don't communicate with your neighbor with the assistance
> of that Telecom, so their existence might be pretty much irrelevant to
> you. And the Internet.
>
> As such, and because the Internet is defined by the end points, that
> are essentially owned/operated by individuals, you could view it as a
> network of private entities. The Internet is designed in such a way,
> that the intermediate network (and whatever other stuff lurks there)
> is irrelevant. If the end nodes can communicate with each other, you
> have Internet. If not -- you have nothing.
>
> Now, Governments, under the guidance of Telecoms and other large
> corporations try to regulate this stuff, with the primary goal to
> ensure those "large investors" continued control and profits. But as
> long as the end nodes continue to not be dumb terminals fully
> controlled "by the network", this is pretty much impossible.
>
> Maybe, I was not precise enough with my statement of the Internet
> being a private network. I did not mean to say the Internet is the
> private network of someone. Hope this never, ever happens. I meant to
> say the Internet is a network of individual entities, usually private
> persons. Private interests, those of the private individuals indeed
> dominate Internet. it is a public space in the sense that
> participation is not restricted.
>
>> /
>>
>> McTim underestimates the "where" the Court request is leading. A
>> simple "no" by ICANN/IANA/NTIA would not be the end for the US
>> District Court to act.
>> McTim is right about the fact that Iran and Syria pay no fees to
>> ICANN, but still this does not evacuate the idea, as per the Court
>> appreciation and own view, that a ccTLD has great value. McTim has
>> acknowledged this fact.
>> /
>
> In as much as ccTLD may have great value, it is nothing more than a
> string of letters. A well known one, yes. But transferring the
> responsibility for that string of letters to someone else (what is
> being asked) could very obviously destroy whatever value it might
> have. It *will* also cause direct damage to the material interests of
> those who chose to have a name under that ccTLD.
>
> This is an even bigger Can of Worms/Pandora Box -- is the US court
> prepared to deal with lawsuits and considering compensations for all
> those whose domains get wiped by this act?
> This is the kind of "don't even think about it" kind of response ICANN
> should/have given.
>
> Unfortunately, by being a political act, this law needs not follow
> common sense.
>
>> /
>>
>> Back to Joly's "ICANN Licenses the ccTLDS..." Strictly true? ICANN
>> having a license over ccTLDs
>>
>> IANA, which is not an incorporate non profit, is a "/department of
>> ICANN/". It is an 'authority' with no legal ground, no bylaws in the
>> US, nor any International recognition. Still it has quite many
>> responsibilities. One major constraint for ICANN/IANA regarding the
>> root zone is that nothing can be changed in the root zone file
>> without an approval by DoC (through NTIA).
>> The new IANA (part of the new ICANN) has taken over the continuity of
>> handling the delegation
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en> of
>> the ccTLDs to registries since Jon Postel died in 1998, days before
>> ICANN was incorporated with Vint Cerf as first president. By then
>> IANA was funded by the US Department of Defense. We should all
>> remember that Postel came to Geneva in 1997 where he intended to
>> establish a non profit, with an international recognition from
>> governments, a non profit that would handle the civilian root zone
>> for the planet. His project was opposed by US diplomats in Geneva at
>> the time.
>> /
>
> IANA is *the* authority in what it does. International law nothing to
> do with it. IANA's role is to compile and maintain the list of DNS
> TLDs and various Internet protocol databases of numbers. Someone might
> have oversight of what IANA does, but the entity (no matter how it is
> constitutes) has the ultimate authority "what is which".
>
> Imagine, I build a collection of post stamps. I am the ultimate
> authority over what goes into my collection. Now, imagine my
> collection has become very popular worldwide, is being refered to by
> many and some even use it as their reference point (precisely, what
> has happened with DNS and IANA). Do I cease to be *the* authority of
> my post stamp collection?
> Yes, things might get more complex, but unless the authority itself
> decides to give up and transform somehow, nothing will change.
>
>
>> /
>>
>> So to anwser Joly: *Yes, IANA, a department of ICANN delegates (the
>> verb to license would not be strictly right) each ccTLD to a unique
>> entity/registry, but only after the US DoC approval. IANA is also
>> responsible for re-delegation.*
>> /
> There is an RFC document (RFC1591), that documents the process,
> criteria etc. There is an Framework of Interpretation Working Group of
> the ccNSO to try explain in today's terminology what the intent of
> this document is and how it should be interpreted by IANA (because it
> became obvious that IANA was confused or pressured several times to do
> things that could not be explained by RFC1591).
>
> This RFC1591 does not talk about the US DoC *at all*. Interesting,
> isn't it?
> My interpretation on the current situation is as we know it, because
> it was USG who originally created IANA and they seek some way to
> preserve it, without being too much involved with it, as running such
> entity is not their task.
>
> In the FOI working group we came to the conclusion, that RFC1591 does
> not provide for such a thing as "re-delegation". Such process consists
> of two acts -- the previous manager being removed from responsibility
> for the domain (revocation) and a new manager being tasked with that
> responsibility (delegation).
>
>> /
>>
>> In the case of IRAN, the unique registry that has received the
>> delegation to handle the ".IR" ccTLD is THE INSTITUTE for RESEARCH in
>> FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES, based in IRAN, and affiliated with the Iranian
>> Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology founded in 1989 under
>> the name of INSTITUTE for STUDIES in THEORETICAL PHYSICS and
>> MATHEMATICS - this tends to document the fact that the registry for
>> .IR is legitimate part of the state of IRAN. What can the US District
>> Court do about this? Ask for the plaintiffs to become the unique
>> registry for .IR? The new registry would then earn money thanks to
>> the Iranian registrars that would keep using the .IR. Not a bad deal.
>> /
>
> More likely, the entity who received the task to manage the .IR domain
> was someone who was working at/affiliated with the said institute.
> That individual likely decided (for various reasons, including their
> own safety) that it is better for them to not be so visible and the
> institute would manage the .IR registry. At least officially. There is
> no evidence, that the institute has a mandate (usually documented in
> their articles for incorporation or another such/related document)
> that they have "managing the .IR domain name registry" as their list
> of core functions. Unlikely they have such an assignment etc from the
> Iranian Government as well. The Iranian government confirming to ICANN
> that they wish/agree that the institute will run the said registry has
> nothing to do with any "property rights" or "ownership"...
>
> What is the proper term for such desires, in the US culture? "Pipe
> Dreams"?
>
> Running a ccTLD registry I can say this: registrars have contracts
> with the (whatever form) manager of the registry. Not with "the
> registry" in some abstract form. Nothing and nobody can force those
> registrars to sign a contract or pay any money to any other party, to
> whom the previous manager decided to transfer the "business" -- either
> forced or willingly.
> This is especially true in such an political case -- chances are most
> .IR registrars are Iranian entities. Do you truly believe they will
> agree to pay money to some US based party that is confiscating their
> country's properties at will...
> Most likely, those registrars/registrants will swallow the costs (and
> some, eventually sue the US big time, *in the US*) then move to some
> other TLD.
>
>> /
>>
>> What would IANA consider as a possible reason to terminate the
>> delegation of the .IR? If we look at what ICANN considers as a
>> possible reason to terminate a registrar accreditation agreement
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en> (see
>> 5.3 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, even though it does not
>> seem to have its equivalent with registries). But who said that this
>> could not happen when it comes to a registry issue? Again, in the
>> absence of an international treaty clarifying many obscure points in
>> terms of root zone policy, the many vacuums could be of great
>> amusement to a US District Court. Again, that brings a very serious
>> challenge to the global, transnational governance of the Internet.
>> ICANN is now in a poor situation. Would ICANN give way to the US
>> District Court request, many countries would take the opportunity to
>> fully challenge ICANN in its fundaments. Would ICANN pass the hot
>> potato to someone else (US DoC? IRFS, the Iranian registry? Nobody?)
>> the Court might not like that answer, and might threatened ICANN to
>> comply. We'll see.
>> /
>
> There is a very big difference between the gTLDs ICANN created, the
> Registrar business ICANN created and the ccTLDs relationship with ICANN.
> Many ccTLDs were created before ICANN existed. Many ccTLDs were
> created before RFC1591 was ever published.
> All those ccTLD run perfectly well and serve the public Internet (see
> my comment on the Internet being 'private' above). Nobody wants this
> to change.
>
>> /
>>
>> Still we have a pending question: what difference should be made
>> between "to license" and "to delegate" a ccTLD?
>> /
>
> I am not a lawyer, but could imagine it's night a day.
>
> From my "technical" point of view, the delegation process is the act
> of recording who is responsible for the TLD. IANA, as such has no
> procedure to "chose" who the registry will be -- their task is to
> properly maintain record who the party is.
>
> Licensing, is something that requires (pre-existing) regulation.
> Possibly, government-style.
>
>> /
>>
>> Nobody really owns a domain name, and there are many indications that
>> it could considered in the same way for TLDs. A TLD or domain name
>> 'holder'/'tenant' pays a 'lease' for a domain. If the .COM is the
>> property of ICANN or DoC, then .IR would then be the property of its
>> current tenant. As with any lease, it can end if not renewed or be
>> terminated by the delegating authority (if nobody is ultimate owner).
>> So we definitely have a situation that isnot clear, as a domain name
>> is still not a property but holds intellectual property rights,
>> turning it into a very valuable asset. You do not own the domain, you
>> own the right to use it. This still means that any TLD has a
>> commercial value, including ccTLDs, and is therefore an asset and
>> subject to a Court sequestration warrant or redelegation request. And
>> in this case, the judge is not asking for the moon, I would say.
>> /
>
> As always, it is even more complex than this. :)
> Consider for a moment, that there can exist an unlimited number of .IR
> ccTLDs. Or, in some of these parallel realities, .IRC could be a gTLD,
> or what they call it there.
> We all try very hard to stick to this one reality we have chosen to
> inhabit, making compromises as neccesary, because of the "guaranteed
> mutual destruction" thing. Being a network of individuals, the
> Internet is impossible to be fully regulated, just as it is impossible
> to fully regulate individuals.
>
> To further complicate things, to this day there are still ccTLDs that
> do not charge any fee for their registration services. Further to
> this, most ccTLDs do not pay ICANN any fees for the IANA service. This
> is perhaps because, the ICANN does the IANA service to the USG, not
> the ccTLDs. Any money transfers between ccTLD managers and ICANN are
> based on "we agree to fund you" principle.
>
>> /
>>
>> Here is an excellent work funded by the US National Science
>> Foundation and ITU related to "Policy, Business, Technical and
>> Operational Considerations for the Management of a country code Top
>> Level Domain (ccTLD) drafted in 2008. It is an interesting document
>> <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/ip/docs/itu-draft-cctld-guide.pdf>.
>>
>> Regarding a possible redelegation, read what
>> <http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf> happened
>> to the .IQ (IRAK) in 2005. It's a IANA report worth to read. See
>> again the role played by the US DoC and NTIA. Without putting in a US
>> District Court.
>> /
>
> One of the reason swhy the FOI working group was created...
>
>> /
>>
>> All of that is not limited to the respective unique registries for
>> IRAN and SYRIA (both countries are concerned with the US District
>> Court of Columbia writs). The Writ has no limitation, quite to the
>> contrary. Who said that the link between Iranian registrars and ICANN
>> did not exist. There are much more than the first-level domain
>> (ccTLD) to be considered such as the second-level domain registration
>> by registrars. What's about IPs? All of that enters into IANA, a
>> department of ICANN, duties and performance.
>> /
>
> Like I said, a Pandora Box. So the Iranian Government has done
> something, that the USG did not approve. They then go on an penalize
> (supposedly) Iranian individuals and commercial entities, claiming
> they penalize the Iranian Government. Further, because many
> international entities, including without doubt many US
> corporations/nonprofits hold .IR names too, they get penalized too.
>
> Does this create any pressure to the Iranian Government (the original
> idea behind this little political game). Very likely not.
>
>> /
>>
>> So apart from trying to predict with little to no chance the outcomes
>> for this case, we see that in this situation the current state of
>> Internet Governance is far from comfortable. So a lot of work to be
>> done. Again we see that without clear definition, and international
>> agreements, it will be difficult to find trust, clarity and
>> democratic values.
>> /
>
> Democracy dies centuries ago in ancient Greece and Rome. Remember?
>
> If you understand that the Internet is a network of private entities,
> with their own interests -- everything falls in place. Then the
> "Internet Governance" task becomes one of disseminating knowledge and
> dealing with inter-personal conflicts. Even most wars are based on
> inter-personal conflicts...
>
> Daniel
>
>> /
>>
>> Comments are very welcome.
>>
>> Thanks
>> /
>> Jean-Christophe Nothias
>>
>> /Chief Strategist,/
>> /Contents and Projects
>> /
>> (+41) 79 265 92 75
>> jc.nothias at globalgeneva.net <mailto:jc.nothias at globalgeneva.net>
>> @jc_nothias
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140804/d702176c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 24186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140804/d702176c/attachment.png>
-------------- 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