[discuss] Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule Hearing
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Wed Mar 19 20:44:53 UTC 2014
Certainly, the ICANN "ROOT" now also includes the IP addresses, but will it be enough to calm the TM lobby?
FYI "IP" stands for "Internet Protocol," not "Intellectual Property." :-) Other than that, I'm not sure why you link this to the "TM lobby."
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 3:31 PM
To: Carolina Rossini; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule Hearing
I quoted the immediate reaction of GOP, they obviously continue. Your quote of the FCC Commissionner is also interesting. If you consider them carefully (as well as RFC 6852) you might have, like I have, the distinctive feeling that the real issue is not so much the decision about what to do, but that it has to be collective, so no one can be made responsible of a failure.
The decision is not that easy for the USG. They have managed an incredible development for all, they are the leading beneficiary. But they know this is partly a piece of luck, partly due to their funding, partly to a fundamental enthusiasm of a little group of people that may not renew or enlarge to the global diversity. The real question is the one RFC 6852 starts with: the "huge bounty"
resulting from the internet and the web. And (IMHO) of the missing middle-layer between these two propositions: intelligence.
What is worrying too, for everyone, is the NTIA lie: that the Class IN topzone db.file is the core of the Internet. It is difficult to know what will be the political response to the Class "IN" TopRep file.
Certainly, the ICANN "ROOT" now also includes the IP addresses, but will it be enough to calm the TM lobby? Will the Democrats be able to show that the decisions were also Republican, that Richard Clarke's doctrine was not applied by any side, that BGP is still as vulnerable as before?
The real problem, we civil society IUsers (informed users) face is the uncertainty between now and end 2015. Every technical development we can engage and innovation we can propose must stay away from the IETF technology, because derivative works can be legally objected in US courts.
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the discuss