Come to think of it, I guess that the gTLD expansion plan can be considered somewhat of an ICANN answer to this ... Nicolas On 3/10/2012 12:06 AM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > Disregarding the thorny issue that it must be done sometimes for > botnet and such, and just concentrating on the > political/jurisdictional/authority/flow-down-contract issue: > > IANA/Icann can *assert* *its* authority on the root file and say to VS > something like: don't disrupt DNS connectivity in other parts of the > world via changes in the root. You may safely respond to local > querries within your technical capability, but this is off limit. > > I'm not arguing now that this would necessarily be sound policy (it > would clearly be regarding IPR, less clearly with spambots), but it's > got everything to do with authority assertion (or lack thereof) on the > root. > > I will be happy to learn be being contradicted in 7 different ways. > > Nicolas > > On 3/9/2012 9:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I am no fan of the domain name seizures but there is an unfortunate >> level of confusion about what is really at issue here. >> The domain seizures imposed on VeriSign actually have nothing to do >> with the fact that the US controls the authoritative root zone file. >> Rather, they are allowed by the fact that the domains are registered >> under .com, and the .com registry falls under US jurisdiction. We >> could delegate root zone authority to the ITU, the United Nations, >> the IGF, Russia, China or the IGP and it wouldn't make one bit of >> difference to the ability of the FBI, ICE, or any other US authority >> to order Verisign to disable a second level domain registered under >> .com. Only Verisign, the operator of the .com registry, can without >> the consent of the registrant redirect a dns query from the >> nameserver for foo.com to ice.gov. >> >> IANA cannot do this. ICANN cannot do this. >> >> Just so you know. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >>> Adam Peake >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:01 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [governance] Verisign seizes .com >>> domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities >>> >>> 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-registe >>>> red-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