Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Wednesday, June 05, 2002, 3:13:02 AM, DPF wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:33:02 -0400, "John Berryhill"
> <john@johnberryhill.com> wrote:

>>
>>> stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
>>> Internet users.
>>
>>From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
>>consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
>>embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have embargoes
>>against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and Cuba
>>(.cu), among others.
>>
>>Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
>>countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
>>they should be arrested and imprisoned.

> Which is a good reason for ICANN not to be based in the US.

Not really.

No matter where ICANN is based there will be local laws ICANN must
abide by, and there will always be some that people will make out as
being a reason why ICANN shouldn't be based there.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/


--
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