Re: Clarification please: namespace ownership

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

>I've been reading that USG has issued a directive essentially prohibiting
>the addition of new TLDs pending USG deliberation.
>
>my question is: to what extent USG can assert ownership or regulatory
>jurisdiction over the namespace?

Well... the short answer is, as much as people will let them.

The reality is, the US government paid for and set up an awful lot of the
Internet, and could still destroy it. While it's often said that the
Internet is designed in such a way that it can withstand any attack, it
still resides mostly in the US, and most of the important technical
facilities and organizations (including NSI, IANA, most root servers, etc.)
are still in the US. Imagine what would happen if US decided to just close
down .com, .net, and .org at the end of the current contract. The rest of
the world has just barely gotten a foothold (ARIN and APNIC are an essential
start).

There are no answers yet. The Internet grew out of the US government, US
military, and educational facilities using US government grants, and when it
began to expand into a world-wide phenomenon, run largely by the cooperation
of various commercial and non-commercial organizations (it's not there yet,
of course), nobody stopped to make up any rules, so there really aren't any.

At some point, the US government obviously has to step back and figure out
how to gradually transition things to some sort of international governance.
They probably should have started five years ago; instead, they started two
years ago, and they're not done. And the reality is, nobody's going to be
able (and arguably nobody should be able) to force the US government to get
out of the Internet until they've figured out how to get out properly.

The US government can claim to own the namespace until they figure out how
to give it away, and their claim certainly seems more fair than NSI's claim
to own .com, .net, and .org forever... but more importantly, it's more
enforceable.

>it seems to me that the namespace is more of an international resource on
>par with international waters/airspace etc.

Yes, it probably is, although there is a major difference--there are no
international treaties or even UN proceedings to look to in terms of the
namespace. But think about it this way: how much would airspace rights mean
if 90% of the planes flying around the world were controlled by the US
military, and if there had never been a single treaty between two countries
declaring the airspace between them international?

>i'm just wondering if any kind of USG regulation would violate
>international law...

I don't think there is any international law that would cover this. And even
if there were, I don't think that would make a difference. The US government
has consistently violated international law with impunity (of course they're
not the only one, although most countries, even China, at least show up when
challenged in the World Court...).

>if someone can clear up my confusion i'd appreciate it...

The system is confused; it's not your fault.