Re: [ga] Court oversight
Hugh Dierker wrote: It could just be me but i don't think we need US courts directing policy regarding the running of the Net.
1. Given ICANN's awful performance, in particular, its overt tilt in favor of trade/service mark over any other source of naming, courts can be excused if they feel that ICANN represents a very nice lever that can be pulled as part of a remedy for other kinds of wrongs that come before a court. 2. The US legislative policy, in particular "in rem" jurisdiction over domain names, instructs judges that they ought to look with favor on remedies that compel action on the part of ICANN, domain name registrars, and domain name registries even if ICANN and the registr* are only tangentially involved, as they are in this case. 3. ICANN could claim that sovereign immunity, that it is an arm of the department of commerce. But it has not yet done so in any other actions (although I would expect it to do so in any actions against it as a combination in restraint of trade.) 4. If ICANN somehow thinks that it is immune, it is going to be surprised. ICANN's intrusive business regulation - everything from the UDRP to the establishment of prices, terms of sale, duration of sale, and the ICANN tax - all make it clear that ICANN is hardly a disinterested and distant party to this but is, instead, deeply involved with both a financial stake in the outcome as well as many mechanisms of control. In summary, ICANN has filled the legal system with internet-control pheromones that will attract attorneys and judges and which will, perhaps occasionally at first, result in judicially imposed control of pieces (small pieces at first) of the net. ICANN created this situation by becoming a body that regulates business and economic policy and engages in social engineering. ICANN could have done what it never has done - which is to protect the technical stability of DNS and IP address systems - but it has not done so and has thus made itself vulnerable. --karl--
|