Fwd: [governance] Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities

Sat Mar 10 07:39:32 CET 2012

but ... it also amounts to a certain authority paradox where ICANN
delegates TLDs to entities that are jurisdictionally bounded which seems
to imply a change in authority for the duration of the contract onto the
jurisdiction where the registry is located (or onto the registry).

It seems to me that by subjugating global public goods (remember my
proposition re:principles ==> *what* are domain names) to random
jurisdictional seizures and sweeping authority changes, ICANN sort of
denies the relation it has with the original delegation and, by
extension, with the DNS. This is the price for washing its hands of
involvement.

The solution of gTLD expansion isn't bad, but there clearly ought to be
category of random jurisdictional actions that could not trigger a
change in DNS zone file. The bodog.com example is very important in that
respect. It is a gambling site. Legit. Candian. I hear ads everyday on
my local sports radio about it. I couldn't careless that Maryland
doesn't allow gambling, we do!

Perhaps some classes of laws that are notoriously divergent from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction would not entitled certain classes of zone
file actions.

And, perhaps, as a corollary, for some other classes of behaviors that
aren't covered uniformly everywhere the same but that clearly go to
ICANN functions (i.e. names for botnets) could specifically allow the
triggering of zone file actions such as world wide anycasted change of
authority. Yes, that would amount to ICANN doing some global
laws/norms/your-favorite-concept. I realize that. It would be for the
community to constrain it, perhaps helped by some overarching
international legal statements of principles.

Just thinking out loud.

Nicolas

take a look at from ICANN's blog post "thought paper", see page 9,
section on "chang[ing] authority for DNS. I know that dns zone files
have to be globally accessible, so the justification for ICANN's
authority assertion is straightforward: stability of the root. I do not
think we can wiggle our way out by allowing zone file action that have
effects constrained only in some jurisdiction, unless i'm mistaken.

On 3/10/2012 12:15 AM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> Come to think of it, I guess that the gTLD expansion plan can be
> considered somewhat of an ICANN answer to this ...
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 3/10/2012 12:06 AM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> Disregarding the thorny issue that it must be done sometimes for
>> botnet and such, and just concentrating on the
>> political/jurisdictional/authority/flow-down-contract issue:
>>
>> IANA/Icann can *assert* *its* authority on the root file and say to
>> VS something like: don't disrupt DNS connectivity in other parts of
>> the world via changes in the root. You may safely respond to local
>> querries within your technical capability, but this is off limit.
>>
>> I'm not arguing now that this would necessarily be sound policy (it
>> would clearly be regarding IPR, less clearly with spambots), but it's
>> got everything to do with authority assertion (or lack thereof) on
>> the root.
>>
>> I will be happy to learn be being contradicted in 7 different ways.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> On 3/9/2012 9:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> I am no fan of the domain name seizures but there is an unfortunate
>>> level of confusion about what is really at issue here.
>>> The domain seizures imposed on VeriSign actually have nothing to do
>>> with the fact that the US controls the authoritative root zone file.
>>> Rather, they are allowed by the fact that the domains are registered
>>> under .com, and the .com registry falls under US jurisdiction. We
>>> could delegate root zone authority to the ITU, the United Nations,
>>> the IGF, Russia, China or the IGP and it wouldn't make one bit of
>>> difference to the ability of the FBI, ICE, or any other US authority
>>> to order Verisign to disable a second level domain registered under
>>> .com. Only Verisign, the operator of the .com registry, can without
>>> the consent of the registrant redirect a dns query from the
>>> nameserver for foo.com to ice.gov.
>>>
>>> IANA cannot do this. ICANN cannot do this.
>>>
>>> Just so you know.
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>>> Adam Peake
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:01 AM
>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [governance] Verisign seizes .com
>>>> domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know how many of the take-downs have used Verisign?
>>>>
>>>> And wonder how many of the new TLD applicants have selected US-based
>>>> technical providers.
>>>>
>>>> During WSIS civil society frequently commented on US' unilateral
>>>> control
>>>> of the root as unacceptable.  Many submissions made, can only find
>>>> this
>>>> now... from 2005:
>>>>
>>>> "We would like to underscore that unilateral control of the root zone
>>>> file is a public policy issue. We agree with WGIG that in future no
>>>> single government should have a pre-eminent role in global
>>>> governance of
>>>> the logical infrastructure of the Internet."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps time to make it a public policy issue again?  With the AoC and
>>>> other improvements the US has been pretty good since WSIS.  These name
>>>> seizures are a nasty step back.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Nicolas Adam<nickolas.adam at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> There is also this article [tech dirt] that is very interesting, that
>>>>> goes along the one that you referenced below [blog easyDNS] (and that
>>>>> is well worth highlighting a second time for this crowd).
>>>>>
>>>>> This goes straight to the heart of ICANN's legitimacy. It goes to who
>>>>> they cater to, who they don't oppose, to the limit of its autonomy,
>>>>> what perception of itself it conveys through its actions and
>>>> inactions, etc.
>>>>> I don't pretend to have a ready diplomatic/political fix that ICANN
>>>>> can just roll-out as a guide going forward. But it seems to me that
>>>>> its political choices, prudent and wise as they may seem to the ones
>>>>> in charge (or the ones preparing Dan's one-pagers), are unfortunately
>>>>> the hallmark of a lack of identity and the signs of a sure downfall.
>>>>>
>>>>> No new type of political body like ICANN can survive without making
>>>> its bed.
>>>>> Somehow, somewhere. How it manages itself now, marvelously
>>>>> noncommittally, only serves at alienating stakeholders that could
>>>>> otherwise turn out to support it. And it never gets anything to show
>>>>> for it from the ones that it punctually accommodate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this as a very important Board-level long term issue, that
>>>>> needs
>>>>> strong leadership and attention. The users (writ large) will not
>>>>> tolerate ICANN if it cannot provide consistency and predictability,
>>>>> that is, an identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/2012 8:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this new, or just more of what ICE has been doing before.  I don't
>>>>> remember if Verisign's been used in this way before.  Clip from the
>>>>> blog post (link below)
>>>>>
>>>>> "We all know that with some US-based Registrars (*cough* Godaddy
>>>>> *cough*), all it takes is a badge out of a box of crackerjacks and
>>>>> you
>>>>> have the authority to fax in a takedown request which has a good shot
>>>>> at being honoured. We also know that some non-US registrars, it takes
>>>>> a lot more "due process-iness" to get a domain taken down.
>>>>>
>>>>> But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of
>>>>> Maryland simply issued a warrant to .com operator Verisign, (who is
>>>>> headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for
>>>>> .com with two new NS records for bodog.com which now redirect the
>>>>> domain to the takedown page."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: [governance] Verisign seizes .com domain registered via
>>>>> foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registe
>>>>>
>>>>> red-vi a-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t