[ga] Role of US Government
On Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:02 PM (AEST)
William X. Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Saturday, March 17, 2001, 8:48:20 PM, Dassa wrote:
> > There are always ways around such things. Nor do I hold with the
> > Internet infrastructure being bound by US law.
> Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
> our laws. The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
> issues, must be the driving factors. ICANN it bound by those simply
> because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
> what "power" it has are with the US Government.
On the one hand you are arguing in favour of a single root under ICANN control
and on the other hand you are arguing in favour of competitive market forces
which allow New.Net to set up a competing root.
Whilst I don't see those as being inclusive arguments my main difficulty is
adding an overlay which says that this whole internet infrastructure *must* be
bound by US law. The are two problems:
(1) If there is a single monopolistic root this would be at risk of breaking
US anti-trust laws. Certainly that's an argument that has been made.
(2) There is nothing to stop a person in another country, such as Australia,
setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws except as it
relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.
And as every country can pass and enforce laws within its jurisdiction, the USG
would not have any special privilege over the internet.
As with the "market forces" you advocate there are also political, social and
economic forces which will steer the direction of the internet.
This can be seen, to some extent, with the ccTLDs.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html