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

[jim bell]

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