Unimaginable scenarios begin to play out and the vulnerability of ICANN more so the fragile disconnected 'governance' of the internet more than ever before is more widely exposed. eries of questions arise:<div>1. Whats the recourse - truly usable recourse - for those liek <a href="http://bodog.com">bodog.com</a> to ensure they are not subjected to laws/regulations that don't directly apply to them?</div>
<div>2. Guardians of domain names: They exist in a 'real' space and have to obey 'real' laws: seems these 'real spaces' trump the 'unreal' guidance provided by an ICANN. How to achieve the balance? Across borders?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Interesting days ahead - closer than ever cross border juridisctional wars on rights to regulate business/CS etc.</div><div><br></div><div>More and more we are out of time to get our house in order...</div>
<div><br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:africann-request@afrinic.net">africann-request@afrinic.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Send AfrICANN mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:africann@afrinic.net">africann@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:africann-request@afrinic.net">africann-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:africann-owner@afrinic.net">africann-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of AfrICANN digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar<br>
on behalf of US Authorities. (Anne-Rachel Inn?)<br>
2. Re: Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign<br>
Registrar on behalf of US Authorities. (Brian Munyao Longwe)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 19:57:34 +0100<br>
From: Anne-Rachel Inn? <<a href="mailto:annerachel@gmail.com">annerachel@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Verisign seizes .com domain registered via<br>
foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities.<br>
To: <a href="mailto:africann@afrinic.net">africann@afrinic.net</a><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAKNw-rAJB1GnTb8ujdAdPjHr0RxuyGvMy7FHCX=<a href="mailto:FyLYGJCJsGg@mail.gmail.com">FyLYGJCJsGg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br>
<br>
Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of<br>
US Authorities.<br>
<a href="http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/" target="_blank">http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/</a><br>
<br>
Written by Mark Jeftovic <<a href="http://blog2.easydns.org/author/markjr/" target="_blank">http://blog2.easydns.org/author/markjr/</a>> on February<br>
29, 2012 — 29 Comments<<a href="http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/#comments" target="_blank">http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/#comments</a>><br>
Share<br>
<br>
<br>
Yesterday Forbes broke the news that Canadian Calvin Ayre and partners who<br>
operate the Bodog online gambling empire have been indicted in the<br>
U.S.<<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/02/28/feds-indict-former-online-gambling-billionaire-calvin-ayre/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/02/28/feds-indict-former-online-gambling-billionaire-calvin-ayre/</a>>,<br>
and in a blog post Calvin Ayre confirmed that their <a href="http://bodog.com" target="_blank">bodog.com</a> domain had<br>
been seized by homeland<br>
security<<a href="http://calvinayre.com/2012/02/28/legal/calvin-ayre-indicted-by-feds-calvin-ayre-releases-statement" target="_blank">http://calvinayre.com/2012/02/28/legal/calvin-ayre-indicted-by-feds-calvin-ayre-releases-statement</a>>.<br>
As reported in Forbes (hat tip to The<br>
Domains<<a href="http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/28/feds-not-only-seize-the-domain-name-bodog-com-but-indict-the-4-ownersoperators-including-calvin-ayre/" target="_blank">http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/28/feds-not-only-seize-the-domain-name-bodog-com-but-indict-the-4-ownersoperators-including-calvin-ayre/</a>>for<br>
the cite),<br>
<br>
According to the six-page indictment filed by Rosenstein, Ayre worked with<br>
Philip, Ferguson and Maloney to supervise an illegal gambling business from<br>
June 2005 to January 2012 in violation of Maryland law. The indictment<br>
focuses on the movement of funds from accounts outside the U.S., in<br>
Switzerland, England, Malta, and Canada, and the hiring of media resellers<br>
and advertisers to promote Internet gambling.<br>
<br>
“Sports betting is illegal in Maryland, and federal law prohibits<br>
bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside<br>
the country,” Rosenstein said in a statement. “Many of the harms that<br>
underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate<br>
over the Internet without regulation.”<br>
<br>
That is a truly scary quote but we'll emphasize that: "The indictment<br>
focuses on the movement of funds *outside the U.S.*" and that you can't<br>
just "flout US law" by *not being in the US*. What also needs to be<br>
understood is that the domain <a href="http://bodog.com" target="_blank">bodog.com</a> was registered to via a non-US<br>
Registrar, namely Vancouver's domainclip <<a href="http://www.domainclip.com/" target="_blank">http://www.domainclip.com/</a>>.<br>
So Here's Where It Get's Scary…<br>
<br>
[image: No Bodog.com for<br>
you!]<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-Shot-2012-02-28-at-11.22.31-PM.png" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-Shot-2012-02-28-at-11.22.31-PM.png</a>>We<br>
all know that with some US-based Registrars (*cough* Godaddy *cough*), all<br>
it takes is a badge out of a box of crackerjacks and you have the authority<br>
to fax in a takedown request which has a good shot at being<br>
honoured<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/</a>>.<br>
We also know that some non-US registrars, it takes a lot more "due<br>
process-iness" to get a domain taken<br>
down.<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/</a>><br>
<br>
But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of Maryland<br>
simply issued a warrant to .com operator<br>
Verisign<<a href="http://cdn3.bit2host.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BodogWebsiteSeizureWarrant.pdf" target="_blank">http://cdn3.bit2host.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BodogWebsiteSeizureWarrant.pdf</a>>,<br>
(who is headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for<br>
.com with two new NS records for <a href="http://bodog.com" target="_blank">bodog.com</a> which now redirect the domain to<br>
the takedown page.<br>
<br>
This is exactly the scenario we were worried about when Verisign originally<br>
tabled their very troubling takedown<br>
proposal<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/</a>>.<br>
Said proposal was quickly retracted, but here we have the same situation<br>
playing out anyway. Granted, this was an actual court order, to Verisign –<br>
not a "request" from a governmental or "quasi-governmental" agency as<br>
originally proposed.<br>
<br>
But at the end of the day what has happened is that US law (in fact,<br>
Maryland state law) as been imposed on a .com domain operating outside the<br>
USA, which is the subtext we were very worried about when we commented on<br>
SOPA<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/</a>>.<br>
Even though SOPA is currently in limbo, the reality that US law can now be<br>
asserted over all domains registered under .com, .net, org, .biz and maybe<br>
.info (Afilias is headquartered in Ireland by operates out of the US).<br>
<br>
This is no longer a doom-and-gloom theory by some guy in a tin foil hat. It<br>
just happened.<br>
<br>
The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single<br>
organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc needs to<br>
ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of US federal and<br>
state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness,<br>
especially with regard to matters of the internet).<br>
The larger picture: root monopolies and the need to replace ICANN<br>
<br>
The .com root will never be opened to a truly competitive bidding process.<br>
Verisign has pretty well ensconced themselves into the .com and .net roots<br>
indefinitely with built-in price hikes baked into the<br>
cake<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2007/04/16/verisign-raises-fees-on-com-and-net-easydns-doesnt/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2007/04/16/verisign-raises-fees-on-com-and-net-easydns-doesnt/</a>>.<br>
I recall a conversation I once had with Tucows CEO Elliot Noss, back when<br>
they still owned Liberty RMS (which ran the .info registry and later sold<br>
to Afilias) – he lamented that if the .com registry bidding process were *<br>
truly* competitive, you would see a registry operator in there doing it for<br>
about $2 per domain. At the time the wholesale cost of a .com domain was $6<br>
and is now $7.85 after their latest *annual increase* which is hard-coded<br>
into their contract.<br>
<br>
I mention this because a truly competitive bidding process for the registry<br>
operator job would bring out both cost competition and stewardship<br>
competition: players who would table proposals on just how they would<br>
respect the rights of all their stakeholders, not to mention operators who<br>
may operate outside the United States.<br>
<br>
*Where the fsck is ICANN in all of this?*<br>
<br>
**They are nowhere. They are collecting their fees, pushing their agenda of<br>
as many possible new-top-level domains and despite the fact that SOPA,<br>
ACTA, PIPA et aim directly at the interests of their core stakeholders, for<br>
whom they are supposed to be advocates and stewards. ICANN is conspicuous<br>
in their absence from the debate, save for a smug and trite abdication of<br>
involvement (i.e. "ICANN Doesn't Take Down<br>
Websites<<a href="http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-down-websites/" target="_blank">http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-down-websites/</a>>")<br>
– translation: "This isn't our problem".<br>
<br>
And therein lies the issue. *ICANN needs to make this their problem,<br>
because it very much is.* If ICANN isn't going to stand up, and vigorously<br>
campaign for *global* stakeholder representation in these matters, than<br>
they are not only abdicating any responsibility in the ongoing and<br>
escalating crackdown on internet freedom, they are *also* abdicating their<br>
right to govern and oversee it.<br>
<br>
They need to be visible, they need to be loud and they need to come down on<br>
the right side of these issues or they need to be replaced.<br>
<br>
*Of course, the replacement of ICANN will never happen.* At least not by a<br>
non-US entity, which means we are once again headed to the unthinkable<br>
place that only crackpots and conspiracy theorists think possible: a<br>
fractured internet with competing roots. On the bright side, life will go<br>
on, and companies like mine will probably become exceedingly wealthy<br>
charging every internet user in the world fees to gain and project<br>
visibility across all the myriad internet roots that will someday exist<br>
because governments will refuse to approach it co-operatively. The only<br>
thing that will remain to be seen is whether we'll be deemed "criminals"<br>
for doing so.<br>
Further Reading:<br>
<br>
- First They Came For The Filesharing<br>
Domains<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2010/11/27/first-they-came-for-the-file-sharing-domains/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2010/11/27/first-they-came-for-the-file-sharing-domains/</a>><br>
- Verisign Takedown Proposal Very<br>
Worrisome<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/</a>><br>
- How SOPA Will Destroy The<br>
Internet<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/</a>><br>
- The Price of Freedom and The Cost of a Domain<br>
Name<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/</a>><br>
- The Official easyDNS Takedown<br>
Policy<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20120301/4ac0a375/attachment-0001.htm" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20120301/4ac0a375/attachment-0001.htm</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:49:40 +0300<br>
From: Brian Munyao Longwe <<a href="mailto:blongwe@gmail.com">blongwe@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Verisign seizes .com domain registered<br>
via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities.<br>
To: <a href="mailto:africann@afrinic.net">africann@afrinic.net</a>, KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<br>
<<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAHSdPfamWfGMpcM1pNjqcfKW5Mfv6eoQBubC%2B3X666dnVMSohw@mail.gmail.com">CAHSdPfamWfGMpcM1pNjqcfKW5Mfv6eoQBubC+3X666dnVMSohw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br>
<br>
This is very troubling. And an unwelcome precedent...<br>
<br>
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Anne-Rachel Inné <<a href="mailto:annerachel@gmail.com">annerachel@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
<br>
> Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of<br>
> US Authorities.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/" target="_blank">http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/</a><br>
><br>
> Written by Mark Jeftovic <<a href="http://blog2.easydns.org/author/markjr/" target="_blank">http://blog2.easydns.org/author/markjr/</a>> on February<br>
> 29, 2012 — 29 Comments<<a href="http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/#comments" target="_blank">http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/#comments</a>><br>
> Share<br>
><br>
><br>
> Yesterday Forbes broke the news that Canadian Calvin Ayre and partners<br>
> who operate the Bodog online gambling empire have been indicted in the U.S.<<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/02/28/feds-indict-former-online-gambling-billionaire-calvin-ayre/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/02/28/feds-indict-former-online-gambling-billionaire-calvin-ayre/</a>>,<br>
> and in a blog post Calvin Ayre confirmed that their <a href="http://bodog.com" target="_blank">bodog.com</a> domain had<br>
> been seized by homeland security<<a href="http://calvinayre.com/2012/02/28/legal/calvin-ayre-indicted-by-feds-calvin-ayre-releases-statement" target="_blank">http://calvinayre.com/2012/02/28/legal/calvin-ayre-indicted-by-feds-calvin-ayre-releases-statement</a>>.<br>
> As reported in Forbes (hat tip to The Domains<<a href="http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/28/feds-not-only-seize-the-domain-name-bodog-com-but-indict-the-4-ownersoperators-including-calvin-ayre/" target="_blank">http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/28/feds-not-only-seize-the-domain-name-bodog-com-but-indict-the-4-ownersoperators-including-calvin-ayre/</a>>for the cite),<br>
><br>
> According to the six-page indictment filed by Rosenstein, Ayre worked with<br>
> Philip, Ferguson and Maloney to supervise an illegal gambling business from<br>
> June 2005 to January 2012 in violation of Maryland law. The indictment<br>
> focuses on the movement of funds from accounts outside the U.S., in<br>
> Switzerland, England, Malta, and Canada, and the hiring of media resellers<br>
> and advertisers to promote Internet gambling.<br>
><br>
> “Sports betting is illegal in Maryland, and federal law prohibits<br>
> bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside<br>
> the country,” Rosenstein said in a statement. “Many of the harms that<br>
> underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate<br>
> over the Internet without regulation.”<br>
><br>
> That is a truly scary quote but we'll emphasize that: "The indictment<br>
> focuses on the movement of funds *outside the U.S.*" and that you can't<br>
> just "flout US law" by *not being in the US*. What also needs to be<br>
> understood is that the domain <a href="http://bodog.com" target="_blank">bodog.com</a> was registered to via a non-US<br>
> Registrar, namely Vancouver's domainclip <<a href="http://www.domainclip.com/" target="_blank">http://www.domainclip.com/</a>>.<br>
> So Here's Where It Get's Scary…<br>
><br>
> [image: No Bodog.com for you!]<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-Shot-2012-02-28-at-11.22.31-PM.png" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-Shot-2012-02-28-at-11.22.31-PM.png</a>>We<br>
> all know that with some US-based Registrars (*cough* Godaddy *cough*), all<br>
> it takes is a badge out of a box of crackerjacks and you have the authority<br>
> to fax in a takedown request which has a good shot at being honoured<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/</a>>.<br>
> We also know that some non-US registrars, it takes a lot more "due<br>
> process-iness" to get a domain taken down.<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/</a>><br>
><br>
> But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of Maryland<br>
> simply issued a warrant to .com operator Verisign<<a href="http://cdn3.bit2host.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BodogWebsiteSeizureWarrant.pdf" target="_blank">http://cdn3.bit2host.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BodogWebsiteSeizureWarrant.pdf</a>>,<br>
> (who is headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for<br>
> .com with two new NS records for <a href="http://bodog.com" target="_blank">bodog.com</a> which now redirect the domain<br>
> to the takedown page.<br>
><br>
> This is exactly the scenario we were worried about when Verisign<br>
> originally tabled their very troubling takedown proposal<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/</a>>.<br>
> Said proposal was quickly retracted, but here we have the same situation<br>
> playing out anyway. Granted, this was an actual court order, to Verisign –<br>
> not a "request" from a governmental or "quasi-governmental" agency as<br>
> originally proposed.<br>
><br>
> But at the end of the day what has happened is that US law (in fact,<br>
> Maryland state law) as been imposed on a .com domain operating outside the<br>
> USA, which is the subtext we were very worried about when we commented on<br>
> SOPA<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/</a>>.<br>
> Even though SOPA is currently in limbo, the reality that US law can now be<br>
> asserted over all domains registered under .com, .net, org, .biz and maybe<br>
> .info (Afilias is headquartered in Ireland by operates out of the US).<br>
><br>
> This is no longer a doom-and-gloom theory by some guy in a tin foil hat.<br>
> It just happened.<br>
><br>
> The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single<br>
> organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc needs to<br>
> ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of US federal and<br>
> state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness,<br>
> especially with regard to matters of the internet).<br>
> The larger picture: root monopolies and the need to replace ICANN<br>
><br>
> The .com root will never be opened to a truly competitive bidding process.<br>
> Verisign has pretty well ensconced themselves into the .com and .net roots<br>
> indefinitely with built-in price hikes baked into the cake<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2007/04/16/verisign-raises-fees-on-com-and-net-easydns-doesnt/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2007/04/16/verisign-raises-fees-on-com-and-net-easydns-doesnt/</a>>.<br>
> I recall a conversation I once had with Tucows CEO Elliot Noss, back when<br>
> they still owned Liberty RMS (which ran the .info registry and later sold<br>
> to Afilias) – he lamented that if the .com registry bidding process were *<br>
> truly* competitive, you would see a registry operator in there doing it<br>
> for about $2 per domain. At the time the wholesale cost of a .com domain<br>
> was $6 and is now $7.85 after their latest *annual increase* which is<br>
> hard-coded into their contract.<br>
><br>
> I mention this because a truly competitive bidding process for the<br>
> registry operator job would bring out both cost competition and stewardship<br>
> competition: players who would table proposals on just how they would<br>
> respect the rights of all their stakeholders, not to mention operators who<br>
> may operate outside the United States.<br>
><br>
> *Where the fsck is ICANN in all of this?*<br>
><br>
> **They are nowhere. They are collecting their fees, pushing their agenda<br>
> of as many possible new-top-level domains and despite the fact that SOPA,<br>
> ACTA, PIPA et aim directly at the interests of their core stakeholders, for<br>
> whom they are supposed to be advocates and stewards. ICANN is conspicuous<br>
> in their absence from the debate, save for a smug and trite abdication of<br>
> involvement (i.e. "ICANN Doesn't Take Down Websites<<a href="http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-down-websites/" target="_blank">http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-down-websites/</a>>")<br>
> – translation: "This isn't our problem".<br>
><br>
> And therein lies the issue. *ICANN needs to make this their problem,<br>
> because it very much is.* If ICANN isn't going to stand up, and<br>
> vigorously campaign for *global* stakeholder representation in these<br>
> matters, than they are not only abdicating any responsibility in the<br>
> ongoing and escalating crackdown on internet freedom, they are *also*abdicating their right to govern and oversee it.<br>
><br>
> They need to be visible, they need to be loud and they need to come down<br>
> on the right side of these issues or they need to be replaced.<br>
><br>
> *Of course, the replacement of ICANN will never happen.* At least not by<br>
> a non-US entity, which means we are once again headed to the unthinkable<br>
> place that only crackpots and conspiracy theorists think possible: a<br>
> fractured internet with competing roots. On the bright side, life will go<br>
> on, and companies like mine will probably become exceedingly wealthy<br>
> charging every internet user in the world fees to gain and project<br>
> visibility across all the myriad internet roots that will someday exist<br>
> because governments will refuse to approach it co-operatively. The only<br>
> thing that will remain to be seen is whether we'll be deemed "criminals"<br>
> for doing so.<br>
> Further Reading:<br>
><br>
> - First They Came For The Filesharing Domains<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2010/11/27/first-they-came-for-the-file-sharing-domains/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2010/11/27/first-they-came-for-the-file-sharing-domains/</a>><br>
> - Verisign Takedown Proposal Very Worrisome<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-worrisome/</a>><br>
> - How SOPA Will Destroy The Internet<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/</a>><br>
> - The Price of Freedom and The Cost of a Domain Name<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-domain-name/</a>><br>
> - The Official easyDNS Takedown Policy<<a href="http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/" target="_blank">http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-policy/</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> AfrICANN mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:AfrICANN@afrinic.net">AfrICANN@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brian Munyao Longwe<br>
e-mail: <a href="mailto:blongwe@gmail.com">blongwe@gmail.com</a><br>
cell: <a href="tel:%2B254715964281" value="+254715964281">+254715964281</a><br>
blog : <a href="http://zinjlog.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://zinjlog.blogspot.com</a><br>
meta-blog: <a href="http://mashilingi.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://mashilingi.blogspot.com</a><br>
<br>
"Give us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand<br>
for, because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20120301/e5045d4d/attachment.htm" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20120301/e5045d4d/attachment.htm</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AfrICANN mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AfrICANN@afrinic.net">AfrICANN@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of AfrICANN Digest, Vol 61, Issue 3<br>
***************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Mrs. Titi Akinsanmi<br><br>Consultant/Researcher<br>Mobile: +27 83 300 7105<br><a href="mailto:titi.akinsanmi@gmail.com" target="_blank">titi.akinsanmi@gmail.com</a><div>
Impacting My Generation</div><br>
</div></div>