latest letter from Cruz et al FYI
FWIW, Greg gets a quote. Congratulations Greg ;-) On a more serious note, I think it's either the author is not reading the entire proposal to appreciate the significant improvement on power balancing that has been proposed compared to the current status-quo Or as likely is the case that the interest is just a political attempt to stall the entire transition. Well, the global community has done her part by delivering a proposal that meets the NTIA requirement, it's up to the USA to do her part as well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this time around. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 May 2016 1:18 p.m., "Chris Disspain" <chris@disspain.id.au> wrote:
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well, that's an honor I neither expected nor asked for. But thanks, I guess.... I agree with Nigel -- sending this to the head of the Commerce Department (Secretary Pritzker, a member of President Obama's cabinet) ups the ante. A letter to ICANN is an extragovernmental communication. This is a communication to the Executive Branch from members of the Legislative Branch. Greg On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I don't think 'thank goodness' is the right reaction.
I read that as upping the ante.
On 20/05/16 15:59, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Just like I told Nigel offlist, I don't really care if it ups the ante or not. The point (re: "thank goodness") is that sending it to ICANN at this point puts ICANN in an unnecessary situation as ICANN has carried out the task assigned to her (by convening the MS community and delivering the proposals to NTIA). The ball is now in the court of the USA, if the senators achieve his/her aim through that letter then it would be that USA made the decision to stall the transition process themselves (which implies failing on their own commitment). That is the distinction that I wanted to make. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 May 2016 4:54 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, that's an honor I neither expected nor asked for. But thanks, I guess....
I agree with Nigel -- sending this to the head of the Commerce Department (Secretary Pritzker, a member of President Obama's cabinet) ups the ante. A letter to ICANN is an extragovernmental communication. This is a communication to the Executive Branch from members of the Legislative Branch.
Greg
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I don't think 'thank goodness' is the right reaction.
I read that as upping the ante.
On 20/05/16 15:59, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The NTIA is fully committed to the transition and will decide for itself whether the CWG and CCWG proposals meet their criteria. This letter will have no impact on that. It is a partisan effort and full of dishonest or completely discredited arguments (such as the “government property” claim, or the absurdly out of context quote from Kavouss). This is just the Republicans in Congress positioning themselves to attempt to block the transition. It is not clear whether they have enough support even among Republicans to do that. Cruz remember is a failed Presidential candidate and very unpopular in his own party. Even the funding cutoff is questionable in terms of its effect on the ability of NTIA to end the IANA contract. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:54 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI Well, that's an honor I neither expected nor asked for. But thanks, I guess.... I agree with Nigel -- sending this to the head of the Commerce Department (Secretary Pritzker, a member of President Obama's cabinet) ups the ante. A letter to ICANN is an extragovernmental communication. This is a communication to the Executive Branch from members of the Legislative Branch. Greg On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: I don't think 'thank goodness' is the right reaction. I read that as upping the ante. On 20/05/16 15:59, Seun Ojedeji wrote: well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, if I were corresponding with this man I would point out to him that the property claim has never been settled other than in his mind, perhaps. greetings, el On 2016-05-21 17:09 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: [...]
completely discredited arguments (such as the “government property” claim, [...]
And indeed, the Weinstein case is likely to provide a large step towards clarifying. If the TLD of Iran is ruled to be property under US (irrespective of whether it's ATTACHABLE property) then exactly as set out by Postel in 881/882 the same rationale will apply both below and above it in the DNS tree. On 21/05/16 17:21, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
if I were corresponding with this man I would point out to him that the property claim has never been settled other than in his mind, perhaps.
greetings, el
On 2016-05-21 17:09 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: [...]
completely discredited arguments (such as the “government property” claim, [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Indeed, the only neutral assessment I know of (from 2000) says that the property issue is indeterminate: "The question of whether the Department [of Commerce] has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer." Robert P. Murphy, General Counsel, "Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Government Accountability Office," July 7, 2000, B-284206, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf As Nigel said, a pending court case may (or may not) resolve the issue with some authority. And I have been told that an internal Departmental analysis (which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made public) supports the proposition that the transition may occur. Meanwhile, GAO is in the midst of another study that has yet to be concluded. Perhaps someone can point me to an authoritative determination that the property question is "completely discredited." Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI And indeed, the Weinstein case is likely to provide a large step towards clarifying. If the TLD of Iran is ruled to be property under US (irrespective of whether it's ATTACHABLE property) then exactly as set out by Postel in 881/882 the same rationale will apply both below and above it in the DNS tree. On 21/05/16 17:21, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
if I were corresponding with this man I would point out to him that the property claim has never been settled other than in his mind, perhaps.
greetings, el
On 2016-05-21 17:09 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: [...]
completely discredited arguments (such as the "government property" claim, [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved. And as we are all aware of the keen importance of IP to the digital realm, let's also remember that 21st century property can be quite intangible. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad
On May 21, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, the only neutral assessment I know of (from 2000) says that the property issue is indeterminate:
"The question of whether the Department [of Commerce] has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer."
Robert P. Murphy, General Counsel, "Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Government Accountability Office," July 7, 2000, B-284206, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
As Nigel said, a pending court case may (or may not) resolve the issue with some authority. And I have been told that an internal Departmental analysis (which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made public) supports the proposition that the transition may occur. Meanwhile, GAO is in the midst of another study that has yet to be concluded. Perhaps someone can point me to an authoritative determination that the property question is "completely discredited."
Regards Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI
And indeed, the Weinstein case is likely to provide a large step towards clarifying.
If the TLD of Iran is ruled to be property under US (irrespective of whether it's ATTACHABLE property) then exactly as set out by Postel in 881/882 the same rationale will apply both below and above it in the DNS tree.
On 21/05/16 17:21, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
if I were corresponding with this man I would point out to him that the property claim has never been settled other than in his mind, perhaps.
greetings, el
On 2016-05-21 17:09 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: [...] completely discredited arguments (such as the "government property" claim, [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:13:38PM +0000, Phil Corwin wrote:
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
What is never clear to me in these discussions is what property people think there _could_ be. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question. Let me put it another way: suppose there were property there for the US Government to hold, and they decided to hold it and refuse to let people in the world use it. What is it that people think would go away? This is probably not a subject for this list, since it's not directly relevant to the CCWG. But I would appreciate off-list observations of anyone who wanted to provide them. Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I'm happy to set up a side discussion list since this is one of the key 'known unknowns' in this process. On 22/05/16 07:58, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:13:38PM +0000, Phil Corwin wrote:
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
What is never clear to me in these discussions is what property people think there _could_ be. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question.
Let me put it another way: suppose there were property there for the US Government to hold, and they decided to hold it and refuse to let people in the world use it. What is it that people think would go away?
This is probably not a subject for this list, since it's not directly relevant to the CCWG. But I would appreciate off-list observations of anyone who wanted to provide them.
Thanks,
A
I think we can we can discuss it here, even if it is unrelated to transition. I firmly believe that the root (zone) is (intangible) property. If it is, it most certainly is intellectual property. So, if it is property, it takes an act/vote of Congress to "dispose" of. The USG can not ascertain Copyright on (any) intellectual property. I am not sure if it could register a trademark, but for the root it would probably more more difficult than for .NA(R). But, if it is intellectual property you can get to it under the Freedom of Information Act. And before anyone hyperventilates, there is precedent for that, even: The Veterans Administration developed many years ago a hospital/practice administration software (using MUMPS as the language). For many years one has been able to obtain copies by way of an FoIA request. Makes sense as well, it is not classified information. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 22 May 2016, at 10:01, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm happy to set up a side discussion list since this is one of the key 'known unknowns' in this process.
On 22/05/16 07:58, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:13:38PM +0000, Phil Corwin wrote: Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
What is never clear to me in these discussions is what property people think there _could_ be. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question.
Let me put it another way: suppose there were property there for the US Government to hold, and they decided to hold it and refuse to let people in the world use it. What is it that people think would go away?
This is probably not a subject for this list, since it's not directly relevant to the CCWG. But I would appreciate off-list observations of anyone who wanted to provide them.
Thanks,
A
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss 2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, leaving aside that the Domain Name System is, as its name implies, software, only one way to solve a problem, and thus different from natural phenomena, the individual participant has missed the point. I can not find any reference to ownership of the DNS, which is understandable, as the issue at hand is not the DNS, but (one of) the database(s) at its core, the root (zone). el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 22 May 2016, at 14:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: on Act.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: on Act.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Doctor es You are right there is no reference to DNS but (one of) the database(s) at its core, the root (zone)..sTILL THERE IS ISSUE TERE THAT SOMEONE CLAIMS THE PROPERTY Regards Kavouss 2016-05-22 17:16 GMT+02:00 Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It's not a problem. I understood the intention. The difference is that the DNS *WAS* invented, not discovered however. And invention can certainly create property rights. As -- in US and common-law countries -- a representation coupled with reliance thereupon. On 22/05/16 16:16, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS ( 2016-05-22 18:18 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
It's not a problem. I understood the intention.
The difference is that the DNS *WAS* invented, not discovered however.
And invention can certainly create property rights.
As -- in US and common-law countries -- a representation coupled with reliance thereupon.
On 22/05/16 16:16, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (according to your analysis/description ) goes with individual/ individuals and not a country. By the way ,I dd not quite catch what did you mean by "* a representation coupled with reliance thereupon."* Tks Kavouss o 2016-05-22 18:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (
2016-05-22 18:18 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
It's not a problem. I understood the intention.
The difference is that the DNS *WAS* invented, not discovered however.
And invention can certainly create property rights.
As -- in US and common-law countries -- a representation coupled with reliance thereupon.
On 22/05/16 16:16, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It's a way to create a property interest in the common-law world, called 'proprietary estoppel'. Let's say I'm a farmer. I have someone who is a labourer. He works for me for many years for no, or minimal payment. This is because I say to him "don't worry, my friend, since I have no children, I'm leaving you the whole farm in my Will." After I die, it turns out I forgot to ever write the Will. So the whole farm will either go to very distant relatives of mine, or to the Queen. But because of the representation, and the reliance on it, property rights to own the farm could have been created over the farm in favour of the labourer. (But all the elements must be present -- that's a matter of the facts, not law). It's like legal magic, really! It's a bit of a shifting sands too, because a US court may address equitable right like s differently to an English court, and an Australian court could differ from both of them. But because of the common heritage, they are tributaries of the same river, and do 'mingle their waters'. Application of the concept is left as an exercise for the reader. On 22/05/16 17:29, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (according to your analysis/description ) goes with individual/ individuals and not a country. By the way ,I dd not quite catch what did you mean by "/a representation coupled with reliance thereupon."/ Tks Kavous //
o
2016-05-22 18:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (
2016-05-22 18:18 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
It's not a problem. I understood the intention.
The difference is that the DNS *WAS* invented, not discovered however.
And invention can certainly create property rights.
As -- in US and common-law countries -- a representation coupled with reliance thereupon.
On 22/05/16 16:16, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I am not so sure, Nigel. We have had this debate in the US back from 1997 forward, but that never stopped ICANN being established, nor the functioning of the IANA without intrusion from the USG. I do not accept your analogy, and suggest that we should all stay calm and focus on the work, and ICANN should focus on answering questions, wherever they come from. To be globally accountable is a tall order. None of us want a UN oversight role, and of course, NTIA has said it cannot accept that. So back to the 'tall order' phase of the work. M
To: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com From: nigel@channelisles.net Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:11:46 +0100 CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI
It's a way to create a property interest in the common-law world, called 'proprietary estoppel'.
Let's say I'm a farmer. I have someone who is a labourer. He works for me for many years for no, or minimal payment.
This is because I say to him "don't worry, my friend, since I have no children, I'm leaving you the whole farm in my Will." After I die, it turns out I forgot to ever write the Will.
So the whole farm will either go to very distant relatives of mine, or to the Queen.
But because of the representation, and the reliance on it, property rights to own the farm could have been created over the farm in favour of the labourer. (But all the elements must be present -- that's a matter of the facts, not law). It's like legal magic, really!
It's a bit of a shifting sands too, because a US court may address equitable right like s differently to an English court, and an Australian court could differ from both of them.
But because of the common heritage, they are tributaries of the same river, and do 'mingle their waters'.
Application of the concept is left as an exercise for the reader.
On 22/05/16 17:29, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (according to your analysis/description ) goes with individual/ individuals and not a country. By the way ,I dd not quite catch what did you mean by "/a representation coupled with reliance thereupon."/ Tks Kavous //
o
2016-05-22 18:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (
2016-05-22 18:18 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
It's not a problem. I understood the intention.
The difference is that the DNS *WAS* invented, not discovered however.
And invention can certainly create property rights.
As -- in US and common-law countries -- a representation coupled with reliance thereupon.
On 22/05/16 16:16, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
At 02:58 AM 5/22/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:13:38PM +0000, Phil Corwin wrote:
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
What is never clear to me in these discussions is what property people think there _could_ be. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question.
Let me put it another way: suppose there were property there for the US Government to hold, and they decided to hold it and refuse to let people in the world use it. What is it that people think would go away? SNIP
First off, I'm one of those who does NOT think the root zone, or anything else the US government is 'disposing' of here, is "property." Property doesn't describe a thing, it describes a legal relationship between people and things; a clump of earth, or an idea, isn't "property" unless and until the law says that someone can take "ownership" of it. Other than the physical machines running the zone files, there's nothing here that qualifies as property in that sense, nothing that the USG can plausibly be said to 'own' - imho. But, to answer your question: suppose the USG decides otherwise, and says "this is property, and we're not going to dispose of it at this time." You shouldn't assume that the USG will "refuse to let people in the world use it" - I think a much more likely scenario is that the USG does what it has been doing up to now, which is to contract for the service of making it available to the world. I think you're suggesting that by deeming it "property," the USG will go after ICANN and others and say: Stop using our "property." But it doesn't have to do that - it can just go back to the status quo, where it bids out a contract for these services. The current contract holders could get that, via extension - or USG could reprocure it from some other party. What "goes away" in that scenario is the only thing that has ever been on the table in the first place: USG's "endorsement" of ICANN and the whole IANA superstructure as the authoritative source of names, numbers, and protocols. That was incredibly valuable and important in 1998 - not sure how it would play out today. David ******************************* David G. Post Volokh Conspiracy Blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n Music https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets Publications & Misc. http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
-----Original Message-----
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property" For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-consti... I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive." But look at what they _do_ say: "The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server." "The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server." "control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement" The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property." Case closed.
Dear Co-Chairs, permit me to star, or not, that this is nonsense. el On 2016-05-23 08:27 , Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property" For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-consti...
I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive."
But look at what they _do_ say:
"The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server."
"The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server."
"control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement"
The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property."
Case closed.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
s/star/state/ el On 2016-05-23 08:47 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
permit me to star, or not, that this is nonsense.
el
On 2016-05-23 08:27 , Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property" For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-consti...
I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive."
But look at what they _do_ say:
"The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server."
"The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server."
"control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement"
The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property."
Case closed.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse Maison Postel, Ollivier St <Directors@omadhina.net> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3TD Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
Among people who really know what the IANA does there is a strong rebuttable presumption that property IS involved. You need to go back not to 2000, but to 1984 and even slightly further back to understand.titles The whole DNS is a single domain. Soi-disant 'top-level' domains are delegated from the invisible name ('.) Those TLDs were delegated under various different sets of condition, mostly but perhaps not entirely, set out in various RFCs, until around 2000 ICANN abandoned them, except where ccTLDs were concerned. But the key thread running through the RFCs is 'these requirements apply recursively throughout the tree'. It is trite to say that property can be tangible or intangible. In England, you can have "intangible" realty, for example, such as leasehold land**. A domain name, such as SEX.COM is property. Well, the NAME isn't property, but the bundle of rights -- mainly contractual in nature -- that are associated with it, certainly is. It is not a stretch to argue that IF the country-code TLD of .XX is property (and I think there's a well-argued academic paper by someone to whom we give great respect, that says it is . . .) THEN the root domain is also a form of property. The interesting thing is that ICANN owns nothing and has no powers given to it by Authority. This totally contrasts with organisations such as the UK's Ofcom, which we call quangos. ICANN really is unique in this regard. It's a regulator that has no formal regulatory powers. It only does what it does becuase the actors involved treat its rules as binding. This is fascinating, becuase I would say that's pretty similar to large parts of the (partly unwritten) British Constitution. That is said to trade certainty for flexibilty, which is perhaps not what we want in ICANN. But that's another rathole we don't want to go down, I suspect, unless everyone's so bored with normal work. _________________________________________________________________________ (** As an aside, for any purists, strictly speaking, even freehold land is 'sort of intangible' in the UK, as unlike some US states, such as, I vaguely recall, Nevada, title to realty is not alloidal -- the Queen is the ultimate owner) On 23/05/16 08:27, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property" For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-consti...
I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive."
But look at what they _do_ say:
"The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server."
"The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server."
"control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement"
The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property."
Case closed.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Many of the policies governing the root zone from the rfcs do _not_ apply throughout the tree. I feel on pretty confident ground about this. If you need examples I will provide when I'm at a real machine, but as a general matter it is dangerous to reason from "policy in ." to "policy for all domains." The protocol is different. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 23, 2016, at 10:57, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Among people who really know what the IANA does there is a strong rebuttable presumption that property IS involved.
You need to go back not to 2000, but to 1984 and even slightly further back to understand.titles
The whole DNS is a single domain. Soi-disant 'top-level' domains are delegated from the invisible name ('.)
Those TLDs were delegated under various different sets of condition, mostly but perhaps not entirely, set out in various RFCs, until around 2000 ICANN abandoned them, except where ccTLDs were concerned.
But the key thread running through the RFCs is 'these requirements apply recursively throughout the tree'.
It is trite to say that property can be tangible or intangible. In England, you can have "intangible" realty, for example, such as leasehold land**.
A domain name, such as SEX.COM is property.
Well, the NAME isn't property, but the bundle of rights -- mainly contractual in nature -- that are associated with it, certainly is.
It is not a stretch to argue that IF the country-code TLD of .XX is property (and I think there's a well-argued academic paper by someone to whom we give great respect, that says it is . . .) THEN the root domain is also a form of property.
The interesting thing is that ICANN owns nothing and has no powers given to it by Authority.
This totally contrasts with organisations such as the UK's Ofcom, which we call quangos. ICANN really is unique in this regard. It's a regulator that has no formal regulatory powers.
It only does what it does becuase the actors involved treat its rules as binding.
This is fascinating, becuase I would say that's pretty similar to large parts of the (partly unwritten) British Constitution. That is said to trade certainty for flexibilty, which is perhaps not what we want in ICANN.
But that's another rathole we don't want to go down, I suspect, unless everyone's so bored with normal work.
_________________________________________________________________________ (** As an aside, for any purists, strictly speaking, even freehold land is 'sort of intangible' in the UK, as unlike some US states, such as, I vaguely recall, Nevada, title to realty is not alloidal -- the Queen is the ultimate owner)
On 23/05/16 08:27, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property" For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-consti...
I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive."
But look at what they _do_ say:
"The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server."
"The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server."
"control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement"
The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property."
Case closed.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Don't mix policy, policies, legal and protocol together. You might get invited to a chese sandwich :-)-O el On 2016-05-23 11:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Many of the policies governing the root zone from the rfcs do _not_ apply throughout the tree. I feel on pretty confident ground about this. If you need examples I will provide when I'm at a real machine, but as a general matter it is dangerous to reason from "policy in ." to "policy for all domains." The protocol is different.
A
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
O Sent from my iPhone
On 23 May 2016, at 12:28, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Many of the policies governing the root zone from the rfcs do _not_ apply throughout the tree. I feel on pretty confident ground about this. If you need examples I will provide when I'm at a real machine, but as a general matter it is dangerous to reason from "policy in ." to "policy for all domains." The protocol is different.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 23, 2016, at 10:57, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Among people who really know what the IANA does there is a strong rebuttable presumption that property IS involved.
You need to go back not to 2000, but to 1984 and even slightly further back to understand.titles
The whole DNS is a single domain. Soi-disant 'top-level' domains are delegated from the invisible name ('.)
Those TLDs were delegated under various different sets of condition, mostly but perhaps not entirely, set out in various RFCs, until around 2000 ICANN abandoned them, except where ccTLDs were concerned.
But the key thread running through the RFCs is 'these requirements apply recursively throughout the tree'.
It is trite to say that property can be tangible or intangible. In England, you can have "intangible" realty, for example, such as leasehold land**.
A domain name, such as SEX.COM is property.
Well, the NAME isn't property, but the bundle of rights -- mainly contractual in nature -- that are associated with it, certainly is.
It is not a stretch to argue that IF the country-code TLD of .XX is property (and I think there's a well-argued academic paper by someone to whom we give great respect, that says it is . . .) THEN the root domain is also a form of property.
The interesting thing is that ICANN owns nothing and has no powers given to it by Authority.
This totally contrasts with organisations such as the UK's Ofcom, which we call quangos. ICANN really is unique in this regard. It's a regulator that has no formal regulatory powers.
It only does what it does becuase the actors involved treat its rules as binding.
This is fascinating, becuase I would say that's pretty similar to large parts of the (partly unwritten) British Constitution. That is said to trade certainty for flexibilty, which is perhaps not what we want in ICANN.
But that's another rathole we don't want to go down, I suspect, unless everyone's so bored with normal work.
_________________________________________________________________________ (** As an aside, for any purists, strictly speaking, even freehold land is 'sort of intangible' in the UK, as unlike some US states, such as, I vaguely recall, Nevada, title to realty is not alloidal -- the Queen is the ultimate owner)
On 23/05/16 08:27, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved.
Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property" For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-consti...
I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive."
But look at what they _do_ say:
"The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server."
"The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server."
"control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement"
The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property."
Case closed.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I don't need examples. I know examples exist. Indeed, the fact that the RFCs have fallen into desuetude in respect of .COM is the best example. I was specifically referring to intentional language in RFC 1591 and possibly earlier RFCs that established the Domain Name System. I suggest that to the main extent, any hypothetical proprietary rights creation would have occurred then, not now. On 23/05/16 12:46, Arasteh wrote:
O
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 May 2016, at 12:28, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Many of the policies governing the root zone from the rfcs do _not_ apply throughout the tree. I feel on pretty confident ground about this. If you need examples I will provide when I'm at a real machine, but as a general matter it is dangerous to reason from "policy in ." to "policy for all domains." The protocol is different.
A
Thanks, Milton. I might want to only mildly suggest that it is important for all of us who support the transition to just keep 'soldiering on', describing why and how this transition benefits the global Internet, how it does not disadvantage the US overall, and how we can ensure ICANN plays it limited but critical role in contributing to an open and interoperable and resilient Internet, as it fulfills its limited functions. Years ago, I spent weeks and then more weeks, and then more weeks meeting with Congressional members to explain the then narrow band Internet. We were all new then. Perhaps we might want to think about the story of the Internet and the WWW as it is today, and help to celebrate that while the technology launched in the US, at the edge, the benefits are only actualized ... I do not want to assume that anyone opposes a transition but I assume that all want a secure, reliable, responsible, accountable ICANN. As do I. M From: milton@gatech.edu To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 16:09:33 +0000 CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI The NTIA is fully committed to the transition and will decide for itself whether the CWG and CCWG proposals meet their criteria. This letter will have no impact on that. It is a partisan effort and full of dishonest or completely discredited arguments (such as the “government property” claim, or the absurdly out of context quote from Kavouss). This is just the Republicans in Congress positioning themselves to attempt to block the transition. It is not clear whether they have enough support even among Republicans to do that. Cruz remember is a failed Presidential candidate and very unpopular in his own party. Even the funding cutoff is questionable in terms of its effect on the ability of NTIA to end the IANA contract. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:54 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI Well, that's an honor I neither expected nor asked for. But thanks, I guess.... I agree with Nigel -- sending this to the head of the Commerce Department (Secretary Pritzker, a member of President Obama's cabinet) ups the ante. A letter to ICANN is an extragovernmental communication. This is a communication to the Executive Branch from members of the Legislative Branch. Greg On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: I don't think 'thank goodness' is the right reaction. I read that as upping the ante. On 20/05/16 15:59, Seun Ojedeji wrote: well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (14)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Arasteh -
Chris Disspain -
David Post -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Marilyn Cade -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji