<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Eric,</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with "<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">redirecting users to fraudulent websites" not being relevant in these proceedings, as phishing is not a DNS issue per se. </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">However "providing false information ..." on WHOIS I do have an issue with.</span></div><div><br></div><div>False WHOIS information is not acceptable to me at all, but ICANN/IANA will have no longer any relationship with any ccTLD unless a contract exists between the two, and then it'll be 250-odd bilateral relationships at best. There is no ccNSO policy on WHOIS accuracy, so not even the members have any ICANN/IANA-bound (?) obligation.</div><div><br></div><div> So I am not sure how we can put that in either.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree we are fairly safe in that California and Federal Law apply. But herein lies also a crux, Congress can legislate...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">As an aside, I am putting money where my mouth is, we (NA-NiC) are looking at every single domain name registered with us (.NA) so that the Registrant/Admin Contact of each is correct. Our policy does not allow for false or obfuscated data, but we find regular issues.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">greetings, el</span></div><br>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</div><div><br>On Dec 17, 2014, at 05:36, Eric Brunner-Williams <<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/16/14 2:54 PM, Carl Schonander
wrote:<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p><br>
</o:p></span></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:543F0E43FEFD5A4D962681AF71B76D77466B8491@BE319.mail.lan" type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span>...<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Integrity
is undermined by deceptive practices such as redirecting
users to fraudulent websites or providing false information
...</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Carl,<br>
<br>
As a definitional statement this could apply to ISPs monitizing DNS
resolution failure, to registries wildcarding (Verisign's historic
Sitefinder and the now historic .museum wildcard), privacy and proxy
registration services, etc.<br>
<br>
As a definitional statement it is inobvious how privileged reference
to resolution data ("redirecting users", supra) or registrant data
("false information", supra) could be extended to exploits of the
temporal consistency of the DNS such as Fast Flux Hosting or
exploits of the public routing system such as BGP hijacking.<br>
<br>
Do you think you could extend your definitional attempt to include
the issues of central concern to the larger community?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Turning to your suggestion to Steve DelBianco and the clarification
sought by Dr. Eberhard Lisse, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><i>relevant
principles of international law and applicable international
conventions and local law. </i> <br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
Could you suggest which principles of international law are relevant
and which international conventions and local laws are applicable?
If you'll refer to the 2002 exchanges between Joe Simms et al and
Michael Froomkin [1], one of Mr. Simms central points was that ICANN
was sui generis and American Administrative Law did not apply,
offered in refutation of Professor Froomkin's claim that American
Administrative Law did apply.<br>
<br>
I suggest we're fairly safe in reasoning what California law, and
what IRS regulation, applies to the California domiciled 501(c)(3)
corporation. Where we may not yet know what law applies to the
contractor for the IANA Functions -- the core of the Simms vs
Froomkin exchange of 2002 -- let alone the nine words before "and
local law", quoted above -- is what, if any, domestic administrative
law applies, before we attempt to harmonize the IANA Functions as
implemented by a contractor with international law and conventions.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance,<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://law.lclark.edu/law_reviews/lewis_and_clark_law_review/past_issues/volume_06/number_1_introduction.php">http://law.lclark.edu/law_reviews/lewis_and_clark_law_review/past_issues/volume_06/number_1_introduction.php</a><br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>