<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Court oversight
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, froomkin@xxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] Court oversight
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=4fGKqr1RT/l8GGiAtFhbAfP0FeX23gncbrVSQzmNHCnBVeOtrtypnHasYl5hWM2QWr/EYyUHHCPcGiiMrJwMd9xYXN99I+R4c+UT9Azbt6aXu0Skux5xv9vR5WOYmRa+3J45U3DwF/TJ/wrisMFZMQuv9lSbEYu7TH0kPigdX+k= ;
- In-reply-to: <452AD6E0.1030804@cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excellent portrait of someone who holds themselves out to the public as something they are not. The question then becomes has this entity that holds itself out as such an agent been clothed with such authority by the principal - ie US DoC.
e
Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I don't see how an order to ICANN to have a registry it doesn't control
> do something would be effective.
I don't disagree with you - such an order would place ICANN in the
position of being ordered to do something that it does not have the
clear power to do.
What I am pointing out is that there is A) a lot of non-understanding
about what DNS is and what ICANN can and cannot do and B) ICANN has
created a situation in which it does exercise a fair amount of real
control in matters that relate to domain names and creates an impression
that it could, if it were compelled to do so, cause the effect the court
desires.
--karl--
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|