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

Jim Dixon jdd at vbc.net
Sun Nov 5 04:23:23 PST 2000


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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list