Anyone know how many of the take-downs have used Verisign?

And wonder how many of the new TLD applicants have selected US-based
technical providers.

During WSIS civil society frequently commented on US' unilateral
control of the root as unacceptable.  Many submissions made, can only
find this now... from 2005:

"We would like to underscore that unilateral control of the root zone
file is a public policy issue. We agree with WGIG that in future no
single government should have a pre-eminent role in global governance
of the logical infrastructure of the Internet."

Perhaps time to make it a public policy issue again?  With the AoC and
other improvements the US has been pretty good since WSIS.  These name
seizures are a nasty step back.

Adam


On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There is also this article [tech dirt] that is very interesting, that goes
> along the one that you referenced below [blog easyDNS] (and that is well
> worth highlighting a second time for this crowd).
>
> This goes straight to the heart of ICANN's legitimacy. It goes to who they
> cater to, who they don't oppose, to the limit of its autonomy, what
> perception of itself it conveys through its actions and inactions, etc.
>
> I don't pretend to have a ready diplomatic/political fix that ICANN can just
> roll-out as a guide going forward. But it seems to me that its political
> choices, prudent and wise as they may seem to the ones in charge (or the
> ones preparing Dan's one-pagers), are unfortunately the hallmark of a lack
> of identity and the signs of a sure downfall.
>
> No new type of political body like ICANN can survive without making its bed.
> Somehow, somewhere. How it manages itself now, marvelously noncommittally,
> only serves at alienating stakeholders that could otherwise turn out to
> support it. And it never gets anything to show for it from the ones that it
> punctually accommodate.
>
> I see this as a very important Board-level long term issue, that needs
> strong leadership and attention. The users (writ large) will not tolerate
> ICANN if it cannot provide consistency and predictability, that is, an
> identity.
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On 3/1/2012 8:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> Is this new, or just more of what ICE has been doing before.  I don't
> remember if Verisign's been used in this way before.  Clip from the
> blog post (link below)
>
> "We all know that with some US-based Registrars (*cough* Godaddy
> *cough*), all it takes is a badge out of a box of crackerjacks and you
> have the authority to fax in a takedown request which has a good shot
> at being honoured. We also know that some non-US registrars, it takes
> a lot more "due process-iness" to get a domain taken down.
>
> But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of
> Maryland simply issued a warrant to .com operator Verisign, (who is
> headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for
> .com with two new NS records for bodog.com which now redirect the
> domain to the takedown page."
>
>
> Adam
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: michael gurstein <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM
> Subject: [governance] Verisign seizes .com domain registered via
> foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-vi
> a-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     [log in to unmask]
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t