Dear all,

I think we have to stop fighting about the past and see what we want ICANN
to be in the future. We also have to fully understand that was happening in
1993 is completely different from what is happening now.

We have to "transform" ICANN into a dynamic and proactive organization,
rather than your typical government (with no offence to anyone), that
reacts way too late.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but ICANN should not be influenced by any
government and/or financial stimuli.

Sent on the go. Don't text and bike or drive!
On Apr 23, 2013 12:21 AM, "Edward Morris" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
>> Here is where you depart from reality.  The US cannot unilaterally
>> change the zone file.
>>
>> They are NOT the zone admin.
>>
>>
> From Milton's blog at the time of the second IANA offering:
>
> A successful bidder for the IANA contract must be a wholly U.S. owned and
> operated firm or university, incorporated in the U.S., and organized under
> the laws of one of the 50 U.S. states. All primary operations and systems
> must remain in the U.S. Any operations and activities can be inspected by
> U.S. government officials at any time.
>
> ICANN manages content subject to approval by NTIA. Verisign physically
> distributes the file.
>
> Two American corporations located in the United States and the United
> States government.
>
>
>
>> Well, what you have is a conspiracy theory that is not physically
>> possible, since NTIA does not have access to the rootzone apparatus,
>> NOR do they have the keys to the signed root.
>>
>>
> A conspiracy theory shared by many of thew world's countries.
>
> As I said, chain of command. The US orders, ICANN And Verisign comply,
> liability accrues under IHL.
>
> If the Americans could do it unilaterally it wouldn't be too much of a
> concern for ICANN.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> We don't create law only policy.  We should not IMHO create policy to
>> potentially alleviate things that can't possibly happen under the
>> current system.
>>
>>
>
> We are currently creating the policy and the laws and the guidance. That
> is reality.
>
> ICANN can either engage or be rolled over by it.
>
> Do you really think the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is doing this
> for fun?
>
>
>
>
>> sure, me too.  If the jack-booted thugs kidnap all the key holders and
>> senior
>> Verisign officials take them to a key signing data center and force
>> them to change the rootzone and then sign it, I'd be happy to change
>> my mind.  If it comes to that tho, we are all screwed and ICANN policy
>> making is rendered moot.
>>
>
>
> That's hyperbole.
>
> In 1992 Jon Postel had all root servers not controlled by the U.S.
> government point to the ISI/USC server as the authoritative root.
>
> Ira Magaziner threatened to pull all US government contracts from USC,
> bankrupting the University, if control wasn't returned to Virginia. USC
> complied.
>
> Of course, under Fadi's strong leadership I'm sure ICANN will stand up to
> American pressure.
>
>
>>
>> > Perhaps. What if hell freezes over and ICANN becomes free of the
>> Americans,
>> > actually controls the root? A nation launches mass cyber attacks. In
>> that
>> > scenario it could be argued that ICANN has a positive obligation to
>> delete
>> > that nation from the root or at least not to grant it more domain names,
>>
>>
>> why?
>>
>> More to the point, ICANN CANNOT delete nations from the root.
>>
>>
> Note the hypothetical: ICANN is freed from American control and has
> control of the root.
>
>
> I'm going to disengage from this conversation.
>
> My point was very simple: ICANN can state it is not involved in cyberwar,
> under IHL it's not clear what it's responsibilities are or will be.
>
> ICANN can either get involved in the conversation or can accept what
> others decide.
>
> You can't opt out of international humanitarian law by saying you don't
> want to be involved.
>
>
>
>
>
>