[discuss] Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule Hearing
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Mar 20 02:23:55 UTC 2014
At 21:44 19/03/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Certainly, 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." :-)
This is why we use IPR for intellectual property rights in the
internet context to avoid confusion.
>Other than that, I'm not sure why you link this to the "TM lobby."
Understandable if you confuse with IPRs.
The reason why the inclusion of the IP address registry in the "DNS
root" via the Afirmation of Commitment is that it is the only motive
for a Judge to ultimately accept that the whole internet is not a
personnal resource management (VGN) affair. IP allows individual
people to interelate out of any private existing circle. They are
therefore something which can be accepted as a civic system, subject
to the law (provided that addresses are warrantied by State related
national registries). In such a case it can be claimed that the use
of a naming string is not a personal entry in a private system
covered by privacy, but a pubic trade mark.
Again, one has to reivent everything if the NTIA removes itself (the
same as the entire technology standardization process is to be
reinvented after the IAB removed itself as the ultimate technical
reference and source of guidance through the OpenStand/RFC 6852). And
when I say everythng I mean it because all we have done up to now was
to adjust the code's law to the US law, in the exceptional
circumstance where the US Executive was making itself available to
the multitude of non-US-citizens.
In the new situation we are to investigate/prepare, the laws (of
every country, and in particular of the US which are at the core of
the transition and want to protect their assets) must add to their
people's national law a "code of the global interconnected multitude
and of its environment" (the layer below international law: above the
common people law). In that area we will have national multitudinal
laws that may internationally conflict. This is the policracy we
havee to explore, learn, and theorize.
>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,
>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