CDR: Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com

jim bell jimdbell at home.com
Sat Nov 4 21:45:40 PST 2000


----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Dixon <jdd at vbc.net>
To: <list at ifwp.org>
Cc: Tom Vogt <tom at ricardo.de>; <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>;
<DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
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, <BANG!>

Jim Bell






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list