Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
- Original Message - From: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: jim bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tom Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com > On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote: > > ICANN needs to be taught a very painful lesson: "Even if you feel that you > > must obey a specific law, you must not do it without initiating a legal > > process and continuing it through any valid appeal. Given that the election > > was only a few days away, it is obvious that no such process would be > > completed before the point becomes moot. You screwed up." > > ICANN is a California corporation subject to state and US laws. It > has an obligation to obey those laws. I think that's a slight verbal distortion. It has an obligation to -not-violate- those laws. (Most laws can't be "obeyed", per se, because they don't order you to do anything.) I haven't seen any explanation as to why any law would require ICANN to "de-list" some vote-selling website even if everybody agreed that the violation of law was occurring. (And it's hard for me to imagine that either the US Congress or the California legislature would have been so net-savvy as to even anticipate the possibility of "de-listing" any site or the "need" for such an action, by going on and passing the laws to authorize this.)ICANN could easily take the position that until it is legally informed that a site was violating US or California law by the result of an actual trial, __AND___ the law actually required ICANN to de-list such violators, it would continue to list the site. Unfortunately (well, maybe just in this case) CP is not generally populated by people who are inclined to believe that the US and California actually do have such authority currently in law, so we're not likely to hear an attempt at a contrary opinion. ICANN is clearly obeying the illegal (non-legal? Not authorized by law, etc) wishes of pissed-off politicians who have no other remedy. > There is or should be no > question about this. ICANN is after all a legal fiction, a body > whose very existence rests upon the authority of the state of > California. Other entities, like churches for example, exist within California but aren't especially controlled by California law. ICANN probably "needs" no greater regulation than a church does: The building it's in will probably follow California building codes, and the people who work there will pay US and California taxes. But other than this, it is unclear why ICANN should even be controllable by California law? I think the telephone-directory analogy is appropriate. Competing telephone directories exist in many areas. If a company that publishes such a directory is told that one of the listees in that directory is currently violating the law, is that directory company obligated to remove that listing? I think the answer is obviously no. > The question is whether the domain name system, the IP address space, > and other fundamental Internet infrastructure should be subject > to US and California law. These are global, not local, resources. The current problem is far more egregious than merely being "subject to US and California law."I agree that once the problem of ICANN boot-licking the government officials is solved, there will still be the underlying problem of current and future claimed US and California jurisdiction. It will be necessary, for example, to prevent any legislature from passing laws which make the recent vote-buying-site de-listing possible under actual law. Jim Bell
Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote: > > Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the > > heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet > > resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a > > California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the > > California legislature as well as those of Congress, the executive > > branches, and various and sundry US state and federal courts. > > But that's not the whole problem, here. ICANN may be, arguably, subject to I didn't say that this was the whole problem. I said that it demonstrated a (one) basic flaw. On the other hand, I didn't say that the problem simply involved US law. In this case the problem seemed to be pressure from the executive branch. > "those laws," but it isn't clear that those laws (per se) were responsible > for the disconnection. Is there a law, somewhere, that said "anybody who we > determine appears to be violating the law in America, we 'unaddress' them > before they get a trial." That certainly isn't normal procedure: There > are probably over a thousand Internet Casinos who are (the thugs would > argue) in violation of some American law, yet they are still accessible to > us. There is a very large world outside of the United States. There is no reason why issues involving .UK, for example, should be subject to the jurisdiction of California courts. Britain is not a colony of the United States, nor is it a California county. Nor is there any justification for US government control over the allocation of IP address space within Europe. But when you look closely at ICANN, this is what you are getting. ICANN was supposed to replace IANA. IANA had a narrow technical role that depended upon voluntary cooperation. Having IANA arbitrate decisions about .UK actually worked, because IANA did not claim any ultimate legal authority. It was just obvious to everyone that if they didn't cooperate the Internet would not work. It may seem odd, but because IANA was gossamer thin, it had real power and legitimacy. ICANN doesn't and shouldn't. > ICANN needs to be taught a very painful lesson: "Even if you feel that you > must obey a specific law, you must not do it without initiating a legal > process and continuing it through any valid appeal. Given that the election > was only a few days away, it is obvious that no such process would be > completed before the point becomes moot. You screwed up." ICANN is a California corporation subject to state and US laws. It has an obligation to obey those laws. There is or should be no question about this. ICANN is after all a legal fiction, a body whose very existence rests upon the authority of the state of California. The question is whether the domain name system, the IP address space, and other fundamental Internet infrastructure should be subject to US and California law. These are global, not local, resources. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
- Original Message - From: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Tom Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:31 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com > > > rumour has it that core carved in to demand by most possibly the feds. > > > here in europe the sentiment today is that by doing so core has stopped > > > being (if it ever was) an independent and purely technical instance and > > > has entered the realm of politics. for example, no matter whether or not > > > vote-auction.com is or is not illegal in the US, what business has a US > > > court or lea in blocking the site for *me* (in germany) or, for that > > > matter, the rest of the planet? > > Tom Vogt pointed out in a follow-up email that 'CORE' should be > replaced with 'InterNIC'. CORE as the registrar actually still had > the name listed. > > Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the > heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet > resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a > California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the > California legislature as well as those of Congress, the executive > branches, and various and sundry US state and federal courts. But that's not the whole problem, here. ICANN may be, arguably, subject to "those laws," but it isn't clear that those laws (per se) were responsible for the disconnection. Is there a law, somewhere, that said "anybody who we determine appears to be violating the law in America, we 'unaddress' them before they get a trial." That certainly isn't normal procedure: There are probably over a thousand Internet Casinos who are (the thugs would argue) in violation of some American law, yet they are still accessible to us. (It's very unlikely that "the law" anticipates "the need" (cough, choke, ptooey!) the government thugs found themselves with.ICANN might be considered the publisher of a large "telephone directory" that happens to be accessed by electronic means, rather than printed on a big lump of dead tree. Suddenly, one of the listees angers the govt: Govt. demands immediate "delisting."Notice that this is impossible with "dead-tree" directories. Current law doesn't even anticipate the possibility of de-listing, at least not before the next directory is published.) No, I presume what's happening in those "votes-for-sale" cases is that ICANN is responding NOT to any black-letter laws, but in fact to the simple desires of various authorities explicitly beyond (and prematurely, at that!) what their legal authority grants them. An extremely bad precedent. > Some argue that ICANN should itself have authority over all of the > Internet domain name system and the IP address space and in fact > things are creeping in this direction. Given the now-crucial role > that the Internet plays in the global economy, ICANN's hegemony > gives, for example, representatives of small towns in California sitting > on the right committee in Sacramento remarkable and truly unique power > over the rest of the planet. > Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net ICANN needs to be taught a very painful lesson: "Even if you feel that you must obey a specific law, you must not do it without initiating a legal process and continuing it through any valid appeal. Given that the election was only a few days away, it is obvious that no such process would be completed before the point becomes moot. You screwed up." Then, Jim Bell
Re: core deletes vote-auction.com
Some more details: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/03/1852255 On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:42:36PM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > > it seems that core (i.e. the root servers) has deleted the entry for > vote-auction.com - while the whois still works and their primary > nameserver (in austria) still resolves, a regular lookup returns with > "host unknown". > > rumour has it that core carved in to demand by most possibly the feds. > here in europe the sentiment today is that by doing so core has stopped > being (if it ever was) an independent and purely technical instance and > has entered the realm of politics. for example, no matter whether or not > vote-auction.com is or is not illegal in the US, what business has a US > court or lea in blocking the site for *me* (in germany) or, for that > matter, the rest of the planet? >
Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > our ol friend Ken is up to no good again. > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: > > > it seems that core (i.e. the root servers) has deleted the entry for > > vote-auction.com - while the whois still works and their primary > > nameserver (in austria) still resolves, a regular lookup returns with > > "host unknown". > > > > rumour has it that core carved in to demand by most possibly the feds. > > here in europe the sentiment today is that by doing so core has stopped > > being (if it ever was) an independent and purely technical instance and > > has entered the realm of politics. for example, no matter whether or not > > vote-auction.com is or is not illegal in the US, what business has a US > > court or lea in blocking the site for *me* (in germany) or, for that > > matter, the rest of the planet? Tom Vogt pointed out in a follow-up email that 'CORE' should be replaced with 'InterNIC'. CORE as the registrar actually still had the name listed. Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the California legislature as well as those of Congress, the executive branches, and various and sundry US state and federal courts. Some argue that ICANN should itself have authority over all of the Internet domain name system and the IP address space and in fact things are creeping in this direction. Given the now-crucial role that the Internet plays in the global economy, ICANN's hegemony gives, for example, representatives of small towns in California sitting on the right committee in Sacramento remarkable and truly unique power over the rest of the planet. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
