<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><div>Out of the four pages of the ICANN letter, there are only a few sentences which are meaningful and responsive to the previous request, and those sentences are near the end of page 3, hidden after an unnecessary and mind-numbing 'description of ICANN' for the first two and a half pages, hidden like any deceitful news story which tries to hide substantial info near the end of an article but not at the very end. That is the first indication in my opinion that ICANN has something to hide in regards to its relationship with China.<br /><br />The argument of the letter is that ICANN's relationship with China is the same as any U.S. company, like Microsoft, so therefore there should be as much concern for ICANN's relationship with the Chinese government as there is for Microsoft operating in that country, and since there is no current concern for collusion between Microsoft and the
Chinese government, there should be no concern in the case of ICANN post-transition either. The argument of the letter relies soley on that false equivalence, and therefore fails to explain the differences in responsibility, post-transition, between ICANN and a U.S. software company. The letter is manipulative as it spends nearly three pages descibing ICANN, and half a page wrapping up the one paragraph false argument neatly in a ribbon of 'nothing to see here'.<br /><br />Any letter which tries to manipulate the reader as I have herein described deserves further investigation in my opinion.<br /><br />Ron</div></td></tr></table> <div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<hr size="1">
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span>
</b>
At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government? <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Thu, Apr 7, 2016 4:32:23 PM <br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<font face="Verdana">McTim / All<br>
<br>
(Sorry for the delay in the response. I was travelling.)<br>
<br>
So, you say that the problem is only in my head, and we can safely
ignore all that I am proposing as a problem! Let me then produce
some clear evidence of the problem, and see how you respond to it.<br>
<br>
You of course know that US authorities have been using US based
registries to frequently seize domains, for all kinds of reasons.
Dont tell me you dont! The first famous case was when the domain
of a travel site based in an European country was seized for
offering holidays in Cuba to a customer in another European
country, because US entities are banned from commercial
transactions with Cuba. Note that the transaction had nothing at
all to do with anything US. But US authorities used the US
registration of the registry<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2008/03/us-interferes-with-travel-to-cuba/">
to seize the website nonetheless</a>. <br>
<br>
Next <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-seizes-spanish-domain-name-that-had-already-been-declared-legal.shtml">famous
case was of the Spanish sports streaming website Rojadirecta</a>
whose legality had been tested in Spanish courts and it had been
declared legal... But that mattered two hoots to US government
agencies which used its US registration to seize it....<br>
<br>
Later has been <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/">this
case of a Canadian gambling site</a> being seized similarly by
US agencies. Earlier, <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cnet.com/news/swiss-bank-in-wikileaks-case-abruptly-abandons-lawsuit/">wikileaks
website had got seized</a>. <br>
<br>
There have been many more cases of <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.thedomains.com/2010/07/01/feds-seize-9-domains-for-copyright-infringement-but-based-on-what-law/">such
domain name seizures by US authorities</a>, quite often when the
focus of the concerned companies was non US. Interesting, there
have been court orders which <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/06/millions-of-dymanic-dns-users-suffer-after-microsoft-seizes-no-ip-domains/">transferred
control over domain names of businesses to other, US, companies</a>.
<br>
<br>
All such legal enforcement by US agencies </font><font face="Verdana"> ( courts as well as executive agencies) </font><font face="Verdana">has been got done through exercise of jurisdiction
over US based registries, mostly Verisign controlling .com.<br>
<br>
Lets now move on to the times of thousands of gTLDs, made possible
by the new gTLDs rounds, and every big business encouraged to, at
least legitimately entitled to, have its own gTLD.<br>
<br>
What if the above non US companies, or similar ones like them, now
take on gTLDs of their own, which they have a right to. What is
the option now for US agencies if they mean to pursue similar
enforcement acts as they did earlier. And there simply is no
reason why they wont. Now, get this one thing clearly - for an US
agency, there is absolutely no difference at all between a
Verisign controlling .com registrations or an ICANN controlling
gTLDs. *They are the same for them, US registered private
entities, subject fully to US jurisdiction.*<br>
<br>
When they want, US agencies (courts and executive agencies) will
similarly order ICANN, like they did earlier to Verisign, to take
down the 'offending' gTLDs.... The logic is clear and simple, and
irrefutable. Can anyone argue why and how they would not.... And
that precisely is the problem that I have been positing, taking
the very likely example of an Indian generic drug company, with a
gTLD, falling foul of the US pharma industry's high Intellectual
property aspirations and standards (which are not global). <br>
<br>
So, in the circumstances, the option for non US businesses is one
of the two<br>
<br>
1. They keep strictly on the right side of US law, even when their
business does not have anything to do with the US. This amounts to
a global enforcement of one country's law and jurisdiction,
covering all kinds of areas. This is highly undemocratic, and not
should not be acceptable to non US entities. <br>
<br>
2. Non US companies play safe and do not take up new gTLDs. This
amounts to a virtual denial of a key DNS service to non US
companies. Which should be almost equally unacceptable. <br>
<br>
What is your response to this situation... If this is not a real
problem for an organisation whose main task is to provide DNS
services to the world, I dont see what would be a problem for it.
And if this is not an issue for ALAC to address, whose main
purpose should be to the serve the interests of more the
peripheral groups on DNS related issues, I dont know what would
be?<br>
<br>
Since I have put forth clear evidence and propositions logically
ensuing from such evidence, I will very much appreciate clear and
direct responses, to the issues I raise and the 'problem' I frame.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 29 March 2016 08:53 PM,
McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
<br>
What amazes me in all the responses I am getting is
that no one is either saying that the problem I have
posed does not exist or it is not important to
resolve, nor providing any alternative ways to resolve
it.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Verdana">
They are just arguing with parts of my proposal, which
is fine, although I think, while no doubt this is a
somewhat complex solution to a complex problem, no one
has been able to show why it really cant work. <br>
<br>
To remind; the problem I had posed was about the very
likely wrongful US's jurisdictional imposition on
ICANN's process and vis a vis the root server
maintainer. I had given a concrete example; of a US
court pushing the well-known over-zealous US
intellectual property law and enforcement to take away
the gTLD of an Indian generic drug manufacturer even
when the latter has no direct business interests or
activities in the US... What is your response to such
a very likely occurrence? </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is highly unlikely, the likelihood approaching zero
IMHO.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Verdana">Should
we simply ignore it?</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>yes, it is safe to do so. However, you must realise
that after the IANA transition is finished, there will be
absolutely zero appetite inside ICANN to make major
reforms. I doubt you could get that Community to even
consider such a proposal. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Verdana">
Or, do you not think it likely, in which case lets
discuss that</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we must. Let's say that your scenario comes to
pass. You do realise that ICANN would use the hundreds of
millions of dollars in its legal kitty to fight such a
court order, right? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Verdana">....
You cannot simply not respond to this key global
governance problem that stares us in the face...
(Apart from it, is the less likely but still to be
remained prepared for possibility of the The Office of
Foreign Assets Control of the US playing hanky panky
with the gTLD of a country</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>countries don't have gTLDs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><font face="Verdana">
that the US gets into serious enmity with.... every
country likes to remain prepared for such an
eventuality. You cannot deny them that right. )...<br>
<br>
No one seems to want to address these key global
governance problems. Do they not exist? If they do,
then what is your response to and preparedness for
these? <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They are not key. They exist as a problem largely in
your head. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where
it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>