Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:21:34 -0500

The hypothetical Phillip just offered -- "Pinhead attaches amendment
that causes ... to go to jail" has already occured.

I was asked by an aquaintance from Tehran if I could provide support
for one or more applications for new gTLDs.

I asked the USG if assisting an applicant from Iran in completing an
application required a licence and was advised that anything other than
selling a domain name to a registrant in Iran was non-exempt. So I wrote
up a license request.

After more than a year delay I got a "no" response. To check the process
I applied again, and in just over a month got another "no" response.

So while ICANN may be able to contract with an applicant domiciled in
Iran, (as an entity exercising delegated rule making authority from the
DoC), a non-governmental entity domiciled in the US risks liability when
providing mere application editorial support to an applicant domiciled in
the Islamic Republic.

Eric

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:44:27 -0500

--On Sunday, 09 February, 2014 08:03 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> To draw that comment even slightly close to the
>> supposedly-restricted purpose of this list,
> 
> As if it weren't already obvious, I think this highlights that
> -- as with most other venues for discussing Internet
> governance -- this list lacks pragmatic focus.
> 
> It is therefore demonstrating the usual tendencies to pursue
> old, frustrating, and frankly irrelevant topics.

Dave, responding to this may be bad judgment or may just confirm
your point, but I think that maybe something useful can be
gained.

I don't know if your comment above referred to John Levine's
original comment or my response from which the above was quoted,
but I think the question of how (or if) the perspective of the
technical community [1] is represented in "Internet Governance"
discussions is directly relevant to this list and, indeed, is
both pragmatic and focused.  If we have no legitimate voice at
the table, or are "represented" by those who don't understand
(and often don't care about) the issues we think are important,
then either fixing that that should be the main focus of this
list or the list itself is irrelevant.  Put differently, it
makes no difference whether we agree to move left or move right
if we aren't the decision-makers and no actual decision-maker
cares.  It almost doesn't matter whether we can agree on a
direction or not except that, if we hold discussions and
obviously cannot agree, that strengthens the hands of those who
prefer that we be treated as irrelevant and ignored.

As to the lack of focus, I subscribed to this list only
reluctantly because I think "we" --as well as "Internet
governance" discussions generally-- are developing too many
lists and too many forums in which, as you put it, the old and
frustrating topics are rehashed again and again, in parallel and
in many places.  That benefits those who would like the claim
that the community (or communities) and "stateholders" are so
confused and divided about what they want that mature actors
(e.g., governments or the groups often described as "lawyers and
politicians") should decide things without regard to "our" [very
confused] views.  It also impresses those who confuse volume of
discussion, numbers of lists, and meeting attendance with
progress.  IMO, unless this list is clearly differentiated from
discussions going on elsewhere, we should all spend our time in
other ways... at least I will.

regards,
    john

[1] Whatever that means.  You and I might agree on a definition,
but it would almost certainly not be the same as the ones that
many people who claim to, or are assumed by others to, represent
this community would assume.