On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks for your work David. > > Regardless of ICANN's public statements or strategic plans, I am not sure > ICANN can be in accordance with customary International Humanitarian Law > with the statement "ICANN does not have a role in the use of the Internet > related to cyber-espionage and cyber-war" (page 7). I am equally not sure > ICANN is not in accordance with customary International Humanitarian Law > with that statement and I remain open to arguments as to whether ICANN > should be involved in these issues or could be commanded by IG treaty or > agreement to exercise responsibilities thereof. > > These are not simple issues. ICANN is a unique organisation that does not > neatly fit into any typical, comfortable structure. IHL, of course, is state > centric in terms of responsibility but ICANN on one, fairly superficial > level, is almost supreme being like in it's coordination of the Internet. > Cyber-espoinage, no problem, ICANN is not involved. However, imagine a > situation where there are massive cyber attacks on civilian infrastructures > in third countries by state actors that ICANN could operationally prevent. Perhaps instead of imagining such a thing, you could actually provide an example. I do not see how the ICANN could, in any possible way "operationally prevent" such an attack!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel