RE: [dow1-2tf] Expandend "step by step procedure"
- To: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Expandend "step by step procedure"
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:54:38 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: David Maher <dmaher@xxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <AEC255FE63E15242B7C16532227D7C8E3D83E9@smmail.local.iipa.com>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Having read again Steve's text, And Tom Keller's addition to it, I am
now convinced we need a completely different approach, that is less
ICANN centered. Of course ICANN ("we"!) shoud not back down to all and
any national law. But the text before us presumes ICANN is the prime
focus and national laws are secondary. I am not sure this is the right
approach. Of course the contracts of registrars/registries with ICANN
are gouverned by private law, not international law. But I find it too
easy to accept that in case of conflict between the contracts and
national laws a registrar/registry is out of luck, simply because of
regulations, like whois requirements, that are perfectly acceptable
under some national law (vid. that of the US) but not under others. In
fact this would mean, that the law of one nation (the US, where ICANN
is) is the international law of the internet. I don't think that is a
good message right now. What is worse, it is a bad idea. It is flawed.
I am all for the ICANN-solution, in stead of a UN organization. But
this means ICANN cannot presume it has some legal status above