[discuss] cross-border issues in the Internet identifier registry system
jcurran at istaff.org
Mon Mar 17 18:42:39 UTC 2014
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> The question is: how has USG oversight prevented this?
> In fact, the USG has used the fact that Verisign falls under US jurisdiction to "seize" hundreds of domain names, making them inaccessible not only in the US but throughout the world. Did Verisign or ICANN protest?
> Verizon, instead of protesting this being made into law through COICA, asked for "a limit on the number of domain-name seizures the DOJ could ask for before ISPs are paid for the cost of compliance".
I acknowledge your point, but that is not "USG oversight of the IANA function";
it is other USG actions (not even Dept of Commerce related from what I can tell)
Now the question we have to ask is whether we're trying to address the situation
of 'IANA Oversight" in a post-NTIA world, or "entire Internet registry system
oversight" (including DNS registries, registrars, IP registries, etc.) The latter
is an issue of much large scope, and while it may certainly is worth discussing,
it's hard to tell whether it should take precedence (given its complexity) over
developing a transition plan for NTIA's role with respect to the IANA operations.
One could argue that it is pointless to address oversight of the IANA operations
if the registry system itself is still subject to cross-border enforcement actions,
but cross-border enforcement actions against the entire DNS system globally, are
related to issues of sovereignty, and may not be something that can realistically
addressed in the near future. Transitioning IANA oversight from NTIA looks to be
a task that is achievable in the immediate future; do you recommend we do not work
on it because of the cross-border issues that are presently happening throughout
the Internet identifier registry system?
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the discuss