On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Beavis wrote: > I come across this interesting link. > > http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828&tag=nl.e036
http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ > Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure? Ignoring the fact that ICANN wasn't involved in the takedowns, ICANN is incorporated in California as a 501c(3) non-profit. As such, it is subject to US law, even laws that have impacts on ICANN's attempt to be an international organization. If folks show up at ICANN's door with a warrant or court order, ICANN, like any other company incorporated in the US, must abide. In addition, ICANN performs the IANA functions under contract to the US Dept. of Commerce and in theory, pressure could be brought to bear on ICANN via (at least) threats of refusing to renew that contract. However, to date, I'm unaware of Commerce applying any sort of direct pressure this way (in fact, if Commerce did apply pressure to ICANN to further US gov't interests and it came out, it would likely be quite detrimental to US Gov't efforts in places like the ITU). Looking outside the US, ICANN has an advisory committee called the "Government Advisory Committee". ICANN, in theory, doesn't have to listen to the GAC (they're an "advisory" committee after all), but to paraphrase George Orwell, some advisory committees are more equal than others. > I only see chaos ahead specially with ipv6 coming into the scene. Well, yes, I expect there to be a bit of chaos, but not really related to the P2P DNS stuff (if coming up with a non-hierarchical replacement for the DNS was easy, it'd have been done ages ago): IPv4 free pool exhaustion, IPv6 deployment, new generic TLDs, internationalized TLDs, etc... interesting times ahead. Regards, -drc
