Interesting how you read the article... The argument if I recall, is that, our history has been of bilateral treaties between nations, moving into international treaties (think spectrum management), but sometimes nations have to find something of supranational impact like the Nuremberg trials which were (one of) the first in terms of law to bring supranational law without bilateral to international evolution (recently the international court of justice). ICANN/Internet does not allow well bi-lateral treaties reaching an international common law. You need a supranational law right from the beginning. Will governments rise to the challenge of the Internet? At the moment this particular "frontier" is at ICANN. This is my understanding, but then I can be wrong... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Larrinaga" <cdel@firsthand.net> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, 10 May, 2010 1:53:58 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] DNSSEC and geopolitics Has Peter Dengate Thrush been quoted accurately by the Register in this article? Is he as ICANN Chair really suggesting an International Treaty organisation to oversee the DNS? and Nuremberg trails for those countries that do bad things to it? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/07/dnssec_and_geo_political_implication... or is he putting out fires with gasoline? buzz buzz <->hornets nest Christian PS Thanks for pointing Franck. /C