+1 @Roberto Putin and many of his generals are war criminals that must be captured, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned by the ICC or a new special Criminal Tribunal, no question. Im also certain of the people of Ukraine’s inherent right of self-determination, independence, self-defense, as well as the legal duty of civilized nations to help defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And though I know nothing of military strategy or tactics, I also believe like minded liberal democracies must do all they can militarily to help Ukraine defend itself, and defend Ukraine’s wish to be democratic. If ICANN and/or it’s communities have a duty to act here it’s not because of Public International Law. It would be because of the fact that ICANN IS NOT an IGO and actually an MSM based INDEPENDENT transnational NGO, and MSM is basically a liberal democratic concept that values the individual human over sovereign state interests. That said, I am still unsure if well intended action by ICANN and/or ICANN communities in regards banning or suspend .RU from the root zone is actually beneficial or deleterious to MSM ends, though IMHO non-action is evidently immoral (and ICANN has acted on it’s funding initiative and registry-aid initiative.) Even presuming ICANN where an IGO -which it is evidently not; should international postal service out of Russia be banned or suspended because of Putins war because of International Law? How would that curb Putin’s war of aggression? What if those postcards out of Russia had anthrax - would that be an International Postal Union/ITU issue? What if .RU was actually deployed for cyber warfare? The most significant of international communication obligations is ITU Convention Article 35, which provides that ali radio "stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or of recognized private operating agencies, which carry on radio service…” "Harmful interference" as per Annex 2 to the Convention is "interference which endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio communication service…". On the other hand, Article 38 ofthe ITC provides a specific exemption for military transmissions: "Members retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations of their army, naval and air forces." And the ITC actually provides specific authority for its member nations to interfere with international telecommunications in certain circumstances: • Article 19 allows members -NOT THE ITU itself- to "stop the transmission of any private telegram which may appear dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to their laws, to public order or to decency, provided that they immediately notify the office of origin of the stoppage of any such telegram or part thereof, except when such notification may appear dangerous to the security of the State." • Article 19 also permits members -NOT THE ITU itself- to "cut offany other private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security ofthe State or contraty to its laws, to public order or to decency." • Article 20 reserves the right of Members-NOT THE ITU Itself- "to suspend the international telecommunication service for an indefinite time, either generally or only for certain relations and/or certain kinds of correspondence, outgoing, incoming or in transit, provided that it immediately notifies such action to each of the other Members through the medium of the Secretary- General." In any case, the lTC's provisions apply primarily in peacetime. The treaty does not state how-if at all-it will apply during an armed conflict. If ICANN’s MSM-bound community wanted to act further it could. And if it decided to do so, via valid consensus, it probably should. But I don’t see that consensus in our communities. I see division. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 12, 2022, at 4:59 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.