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