| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
WIPO Intercedes For Iraq
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 3 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
This is a very difficult situation where there's merit for both sides - the fact that a country should have a chance to prevent inappropriate use of its name, and the fact that private non-infringing uses are possible and should not be necessarily forbidden or discontinued where already existing. (By the way, you missed to note that the WIPO letter explicitly says that no position has been taken on what to do with the existing registrations - see 8. (ii) in Annex 2 [icann.org].)
You may remember that I was the one who, during the Public Forum at ICANN meeting in Ghana, sent an e-mail which Vint Cerf read, and which commented Stuart Lynn's initial idea that governments should have more weight in ICANN exactly by saying that you would then remove power from those people in Iraq trying to use the Internet to communicate with the rest of the world, and give it directly to the Iraqi government.
And yet, what disturbs me in your comment is the idea that the fact that the United States forbid trade with some foreign countries which they judge as "terrorist" is enough to deny these countries the possession of domain names in global TLDs. As you can see, what the US thinks about Libya or Iraq is not necessarily shared by the rest of the world, and in fact ICANN being subject to US laws, rather than to international treaties, is one of its biggest weak points.
So I think that discussion on this issue should not be mixed with judgements about whether this or that particular government is democratical or not. Simply reformulate your reasoning with "Chile", "United Kingdom", "Japan" or any of your favourite countries in place of Iraq, and in my opinion we'll have a more appropriate discussion.
--vb. (Vittorio Bertola)
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Alas my comments cannot change US law, which forbids a California corporation from entering into a commercial contract with the governments of Iraq or Libya.
Whether you or I like or agree with US foreign policy, the fact is that ICANN is a US corporation, subject to US jurisdiction, and the US laws which define those whom one in the US may engage in certain types of activities.
Indeed, the technical contact for the .iq top-level domain is currently in jail awaiting trial in Texas for precisely such allegations.
It is not illegal for ICANN to do business with Chile or with Japan, so your suggestion makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|