Re: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

[edierker@hi-tek.com]

This issue of exclusion of matterw which are competitive and or detrimental to the 
operation of the net as is currently being practiced should not be dismissed 
casually. This issue including how it effects ccTLDs and alternates is much larger 
than any issue involving who splits the profits of Verisign.  This issue goes to 
the integrity of the individual as well as countries as well as the basis of 
reliability, security and accessability.
In this work tommorrow is old news, and if we do not address this issue soon it 
will be too late to resolve amiably.
Sincerely,

---- Original Message ----

On Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:23 PM
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com> wrote:

> Saturday, March 17, 2001, 11:13:55 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:02 PM (AEST)
> > William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com> 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.
>
> > Hi William
>
> > 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.
>
> No, you are misstating my positions.
>
> What I AM saying is that ICANN, whether we like it or not, is going to
> be regulated by US Law and by the US Government.
>
> That is a simple fact.
>
> > (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.
>
> But that would not be relevant in this forum, since this forum is
> dealing exclusive with matters under ICANN's area of control.

I'll accept your clarification but note that your response did not accord with
the argument being put which said:"internet infrastructure" rather than "ICANN".

I'd also note that your response left out my reference to ccTLDs which are in
the ambiguous position of being subject to local law.

Of course, if we are dealing exclusively with matters under ICANN's area of
control we should not discuss anything to do with New.Net or the so-called
"alternate" roots in this forum either.

And I'd suggest that it is the Chair who should adjudicate on where the line
should be drawn.  It's like saying we can't discuss the competition.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss











--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html