Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1258
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 4 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1258

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:22:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP Task Force

Today marks the 9-month anniversary of the UDRP Task Force, and it has yet to 
give birth to any recommendations.  
Perhaps someone on the TF can provide us with a status report and a timetable 
for the completion of the tasks...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:31:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .NAME bidding for .ORG (.org is being redelegated. You should have your say (fwd))

From the message below, and the whois detail of the sender domain, I
gather that GNR, which runs .NAME, is going to bid for ORG.

M

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:37:17 +0100
From: .org domain survey <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: .org is being redelegated. You should have your say

Dear .org domain owner,

We are writing to you as the owner of the domain name 
BODACIOUS-TATAS.ORG. 

You may be aware that ICANN has announced that it intends to reallocate
the operation of the .org domain space to a new registry later this
year. Please help us to understand how services can be improved by
taking just a couple of minutes to answer the following ten questions
and sending a reply to this mail (just click REPLY, and fill in the 10
boxes below)

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

(Use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly
agree, and place your answers between the square brackets indicated)

1. I believe .org domains are mostly for non-commercial organisations
    [ ]

2. I would like to see the .org registry promote a stronger vision
for common good
    [ ]

3. The .org community should be in favour of good causes
    [ ]

4. I support the idea to create a charitable fund to specifically
support worthy causes within the .org community
    [ ]

5. It is a good idea to allow people with .org domains to decide
themselves which good causes money should go to
    [ ]

6. I would like to be able to vote for which good causes receive money
from a .org fund
    [ ]

7. I would like to be able to apply for money for good causes from
a .org charitable fund
    [ ]

8. (Please answer all boxes) I would be prepared to pay up to
(see alternatives below) more for my .org registration if the money
went to good causes within the .org community
    [ ] 4.99 USD
    [ ] 2.99 USD
    [ ] 0.99 USD

9. It would be better if commercial organisations (.coms) used their
.org domain to demonstrate how they benefit the community (rather than
just for brand protection)
    [ ]

10. I would like  to see commercial organisations sponsor more local
community projects
    [ ]

To help us categorise your answers could you tell us which one the
following applies best to your .org sites (please place an X in one box)
[ ]   Community site
[ ]   Religious site
[ ]   Art and culture site
[ ]   Science/health site
[ ]   Issues/political
[ ]   Code development/computing/technology site
[ ]   Charity/good cause site
[ ]   Commercial site
[ ]   Other site

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Hakon Haugnes
CEO
OrgBid.org - Wishing to make .org even better

Privacy Statement: We'll only use this personal information to better
understand your needs and interest and provide you with better service. We
will not sell, rent or lease your personally identifiable information to
others.

Unsubscribe statement: This survey has been sent to you because you are
listed as the owner of a .org domain name in the .org Whois service. This is
a one time email and you are not on a mailing list.  You can however reply
to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field to indicate your
unhappiness with us (but we hope you will not find it unpalatable that we
seek your opinion on how the top-level domain .org should be run), in which
case we will manually read your email and make sure you don't receive
anything from us in the future.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:21:46 -0700
From: "quicknet" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .NAME bidding for .ORG (.org is being redelegated. You should have your say (fwd))

Boy that's what i call slanted questioning.

>
> Dear .org domain owner,
>
> We are writing to you as the owner of the domain name
> BODACIOUS-TATAS.ORG.
>
> You may be aware that ICANN has announced that it intends to reallocate
> the operation of the .org domain space to a new registry later this
> year. Please help us to understand how services can be improved by
> taking just a couple of minutes to answer the following ten questions
> and sending a reply to this mail (just click REPLY, and fill in the 10
> boxes below)
>
> Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:
>
> (Use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly
> agree, and place your answers between the square brackets indicated)
>
> 1. I believe .org domains are mostly for non-commercial organisations
>     [ ]
>
> 2. I would like to see the .org registry promote a stronger vision
> for common good
>     [ ]
>
> 3. The .org community should be in favour of good causes
>     [ ]
>
> 4. I support the idea to create a charitable fund to specifically
> support worthy causes within the .org community
>     [ ]
>
> 5. It is a good idea to allow people with .org domains to decide
> themselves which good causes money should go to
>     [ ]
>
> 6. I would like to be able to vote for which good causes receive money
> from a .org fund
>     [ ]
>
> 7. I would like to be able to apply for money for good causes from
> a .org charitable fund
>     [ ]
>
> 8. (Please answer all boxes) I would be prepared to pay up to
> (see alternatives below) more for my .org registration if the money
> went to good causes within the .org community
>     [ ] 4.99 USD
>     [ ] 2.99 USD
>     [ ] 0.99 USD
>
> 9. It would be better if commercial organisations (.coms) used their
> .org domain to demonstrate how they benefit the community (rather than
> just for brand protection)
>     [ ]
>
> 10. I would like  to see commercial organisations sponsor more local
> community projects
>     [ ]
>
>
> To help us categorise your answers could you tell us which one the
> following applies best to your .org sites (please place an X in one box)
> [ ]   Community site
> [ ]   Religious site
> [ ]   Art and culture site
> [ ]   Science/health site
> [ ]   Issues/political
> [ ]   Code development/computing/technology site
> [ ]   Charity/good cause site
> [ ]   Commercial site
> [ ]   Other site
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hakon Haugnes
> CEO
> OrgBid.org - Wishing to make .org even better
>
>
>
> Privacy Statement: We'll only use this personal information to better
> understand your needs and interest and provide you with better service. We
> will not sell, rent or lease your personally identifiable information to
> others.
>
> Unsubscribe statement: This survey has been sent to you because you are
> listed as the owner of a .org domain name in the .org Whois service. This
is
> a one time email and you are not on a mailing list.  You can however reply
> to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field to indicate your
> unhappiness with us (but we hope you will not find it unpalatable that we
> seek your opinion on how the top-level domain .org should be run), in
which
> case we will manually read your email and make sure you don't receive
> anything from us in the future.
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 17:20:43 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

Joe Sims wrote:

> So, if 240 LIC's decide on 240 different policies, that is not only OK,
but
> the way it should be...

I couldn't have said it better myself!

The only obligation ICANN should have is to make sure their ccTLD is in the
root, and to paraphrase a line from the 60's Broadway show Hair, let the
individual countries "do what they want, be what they want to be, and as
long as they don't hurt anyone" ("hurt anyone" being defined as messing with
anyone else's interconnectivity), that's it!

As for escrow; it's buyer beware.  Don't do business with a country that
might lose your registration.

As for dispute resolution; within a country, ICANN should not be dictating
policy to that country.

As for whois; within a country, ICANN should not be dictating policy to that
country.

All of this presumes, of course, that ICANN's mission is merely technical
coordination.  And on that, I believe, the jury is still out.

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
- -----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:57:59 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

Joe Sims wrote:
> 
> This is a pretty good illustration of the perception gulf we are dealing
> with.  

Yes, indeed.

> Hello! -- ICANN was created because individual national governments
> cannot effectively deal with the global issues created by global character
> of the Internet and the DNS.  Notice that to Peter, the only global issue
> is interconnection, and things like cc's that act like g's, escrow, dispute
> resolution, whois -- these are all up to the "local internet community."

I'd say the first thing to settle here is which way around the relation
betwwen ICANN and the ccTLDs should work. I'm thinking of some stuff (no
doubt over-simplified) I was taught in high school: in the US the states
retain all authority except what they've granted to the federal gov't,
while in Canada the feds retain all authority except what they've
delegated to provinces. Either system can work. Which is appropriate
here?

The Internet is a conglomeration of networks of various sorts held
together by common protocols. It needs both decentralised authority
for the individual networks and enough central co-ordination to ensure
the whole thing works.

In general, I lean to the position that ICANN's role should be strictly
limited, providing only those centralised services required to keep the
Net working. Anything that can be left to the ccTLDs, should be.

[snip]

> >Such
> >things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
> >resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
> >cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our
> who
> >to contact when an issue arises  -- stuff like this?
> 
> No. These things, in a cctld, have nothing to do with ICANN.

I'd say whois is a network-wide issue. When some insecure server in
$COUNTRY sends me spam, or a virus probe against my web server, I
need to be able to contact the admin, quickly. Whatever whois service
is in place must support that. Otherwise, a particularly virulent
virus or spammer could trash the whole Net.

I'm not certain ICANN is the appropriate network-wide authority for
this issue, but since whois is closely bound to DNS and registration,
it is certainly the obvious candidate.

Also, there may need to be considerable adaptation of whois policies
to comply with local privacy law. Presumably the ccTLDs would need
to be deeply involved inthat process. 

> These are issues for the LIC, and because they are in the main subject
> to clear and identifiable national law, there is an available remedy
> for any problem which a registrant might encounter. How presumptuous
> to think that ICANN should or could play any role in this. Its not
> ICANN's job to protect the people of a cctld from failure of its
> registry.

Again, this is to some extent a net-wide issue. There is therefore
an argument that it too needs the intervention of a global authority,
perhaps ICANN.

For example, I regularly visit Gutmann's crypto reference page:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/links.html
and often refer others there. It is a wonderful resource. If .nz
goes down, all its users are affected, not just New Zealanders.

On the other hand, if .nz goes down, New Zealanders are certainly
going to be affected, and they are almost certainly going to be
the ones that have to fix it. I'd therefore say there's no need 
to have ICANN involved here.

How about a compromise? Address the global concerns while minimizing
ICANN intrusion into ccTLD turf: agree that:

    ICANN contracts with TLDs should require compliance with RFC 2780 
    http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2870.txt

    ICANN may require compliance with future BCP (Best Current Practice)
    RFCs for DNS, if IETF issues any

    ICANN will impose no other requirements on ccTLD management

> Its simply absurd to suggest that its ICANN role to
> provide a dispute resolution process, not the national legal system.
> And if there's a gap in the national laws, there are national remedies.

Yes, indeed.
 
> Cybersquatting in a cctld cannot have anything at all to do with ICANN,
> whose mission is technical management of names and numbers, not to protect
> intellectual property rights.
>
> Denying the existence of the real world will not make it go away.
> Read the White Paper, and the MOU, ...

Unfortunately, Sims is correct here. Much as some of us might dislike
the idea, trademark concerns were mandated as part of ICANN's brief
by the US gov't, in the documents he cites and others, before there
was an ICANN.

However, the rationale for that was that the international nature of the
Net requires some international protection mechanism. It is far from
clear that this applies to ccTLDs. Even if it does, it seems obvious
that national law must trump any ICANN-mandated policy every time. 
 
> But step one is for you and ICANN to accept that the cctlds do not operate
> under a licence from ICANN. They operate under a duty to their LIC.
> 
> And exactly where did the cc administrator's get their delegation?  Was it
> the DNS version of the Immaculate Conception?  If I remember my history,
> the cc delegations came from the IANA,

No-one disputes that.

> and they brought with them obligations to the global DNS and the LIC.

Nor that, thought there's obviously considerable dispute over exactly
what obligations.

> Reinventing history does not
> move the ball forward.  The issue under discussion is what is the
> appropriate allocation of policy responsibilities. ...

I'd say the first principle is as I suggested above. Anything that can
be left to ccTLDs, should be.

The exceptions are limited to matters that affect global network
operation.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:11:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Trashing Our Founding Principles

Michael and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  Good letter for endorsement purposes. Unfortunately, we {INEGroup]
have already sent out to our respective members senators and representatives
as well as the relevant US and other government departments something
similar already with some stronger language regarding the upcoming
'02 elections and so forth...

Micheal Sherrill wrote:

> How about the following for a form letter to sent to any and all federal and state congresspersons and representatives?  Your additions and comments are welcome for consideration.
>
> Dear Senator ---------:
>
> I urge you to focus your attention on the current state of dysfunction of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  ICANN was formed in 1998 as a non-profit organization to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.  Unfortunately, it is not doing this well, if at all.  Although it alleges to represent the Internet worldwide it allows no feedback mechanism nor any avenue of communication that would permit commentary from those that best know the Internet, the users.  In fact, there would seem to be a purposeful effort within the ICANN executive management to suppress and restrict all democratic discourse both by it’s own governing body and from at large organizations that seek information, data, and resolution to numerous actions.  It has gotten so bad that even
> a member of the ICANN Board of Directors has sued for access to documents needed for the day to day operation of the business.  ICANN is broken and we seek your help to fix it.  Please contact the US Department of Commerce and demand action.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> John Q. Public
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
> Date:  Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:28:38 +0100
>
> I agree with Danny Younger that, whereas originally ordinary internet users
> were to be properly represented in the administration of the DNS, this vast
> worldwide constituency is now to be disenfranchised, and a worldwide
> resource
> is to be put in the hands of a group of people who have already shown
> themselves to be remote and unaccountable. (As an example of this, I have
> now
> been waiting 22 days for an acknowledgement of my questions on
> registry/registrar
> agreements, which I have sent to Dan Halloran, and which I have now been
> asking in various forms for nine months.)
>
> A self-perpetuating regime is exactly what may be achieved, if alternative
> viewpoints are effectively filtered out by a Nominating Committe "stacked"
> in
> favour of the ICANN establishment. Moreover, it was a founding principle of
> ICANN that the millions upon millions of ordinary users would get effective
> representation in the organisation.
>
> The anti-democratic trend in proposed reforms is so pervasive that the
> DNSO/GA replacement is not even to be allowed to choose its own Chair, but
> must accept a Chair "imposed" upon it. This is symptomatic of a "top-down"
> management agenda, designed to control critical elements.
>
> Like Danny Younger, I call on all At Large movements to write to DoC to call
> for
> a return to the founding principles. As British representative for
> IcannatLarge,
> I am in the process of submitting a review of ICANN for the British
> Government
> (in liaison with Joanna Lane). We also need to represent the British At
> Large
> community in correspondence with the American Department of Commerce.
>
> ICANN needs to acknowledge that ordinary internet users in their millions
> have
> a right to "bottom-up" representation, organised through existing and
> developing
> At Large groups, with effective and executive representation on the ICANN
> Board.
> Fundamentally, people have a right to determine their own lives and their
> own futures,
> and in Internet terms, this means a right to determine for themselves the
> way the
> Internet is administered, advanced to others, and developed. The Internet
> belongs to
> millions of people (including our constituency of millions of users here in
> Britain).
> It should not be administered like some petty fiefdom by a small group of
> powerful
> people who are fearful and scornful of public and accountable
> representation.
>
> Thank you Danny, and we'll be writing.
>
> Richard Henderson
> IcannatLarge (UK)
>
> "The Internet belongs to Everyone"   "It's YOUR Internet"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:56 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Trashing Our Founding Principles
>
> > The Palace Coup d'Etat Committee has presented us with a plan that
> > permanently disenfranchises the at-large membership, eliminates all
> > elections, and creates a self-perpetuating regime accountable to no one.
> We
> > will now "evolve" from a democratic representative model to control by an
> > oligarchy of technocrats.
> >
> > This is not evolution, it is the repudiation of our founding principles.
> > This ICANN Board has forfeited our trust.
> >
> > I call on all those that support the at-large initiative to set aside
> > whatever mundane tasks that currently occupy their time, and to
> immediately
> > draft a letter to the Department of Commerce to call for a return to the
> > founding agreements of 1998.  We should settle for nothing less than ICANN
> as
> > a true membership organization with the membership electing their own
> > leadership and Board.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:27:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .NAME bidding for .ORG (.org is being redelegated. You should have your say (fwd))

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, at 10:21 [=GMT-0700], quicknet wrote:

> Boy that's what i call slanted questioning.

Yes, it sounds like: Would you like to pay tax, if so (or even if not),
how much, and would you like to have a say in how the money is spend.

> > 4. I support the idea to create a charitable fund to specifically
> > support worthy causes within the .org community
> >     [ ]
> >
> > 5. It is a good idea to allow people with .org domains to decide
> > themselves which good causes money should go to
> >     [ ]
> >
> > 6. I would like to be able to vote for which good causes receive money
> > from a .org fund
> >     [ ]
> >
> > 7. I would like to be able to apply for money for good causes from
> > a .org charitable fund
> >     [ ]
> >
> > 8. (Please answer all boxes) I would be prepared to pay up to
> > (see alternatives below) more for my .org registration if the money
> > went to good causes within the .org community
> >     [ ] 4.99 USD
> >     [ ] 2.99 USD
> >     [ ] 0.99 USD

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:57:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, at 10:19 [=GMT-0400], Joe Sims wrote:

> Cybersquatting in a cctld cannot have anything at all to do with ICANN,
> whose mission is technical management of names and numbers, not to protect
> intellectual property rights.

> The cctlds are not equivalent to the gtlds. Regulations which ICANN  passes
> as the LIC for the g-space are nothing to do with the laws and policies
> each
> cctld develops by its own processes.
>
> Until we get this clear, the real prospects where there can be discussions
> about crossover cannot begin. I for one, see much advantage in a place
> where
> those problems that have been solved in the g-space can be brought to the
> collective attention of the ccTLDs, who may well adopt similar or
> complementary policies (and vice versa).  An existing example is the
> adoption by several
> countries of UDRP as the local DRP. I see the ccSO as the place where the
> cc's will meet, and it should be to the ccSO that proposals for "crossover"
> policies can be debated.

Why should Coca Cola have a right to cocacola.nl if they have no trademark
in the Netherlands? If they do have one (which I would guess), they can
easily deal with any cybersquatter who registers cocacola.nl through the
Dutch courts.  Trademarks do not exist in the world, only in countries. It
is bad enough that for the gTLDs some world trademark regime, without due
process, has been set up. I find it amazing that people try to extend this
to ccTLDs, especially since ICANN is too afraid to even evaluate the UDRP.
That should have been done over a year ago. We are still waiting.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 00:47:41 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .NAME bidding for .ORG (.org is being redelegated. You should have your say (fwd))

On 2002-06-03 10:21:46 -0700, quicknet wrote:

>Boy that's what i call slanted questioning.

... combined with what looks quite strongly like an abuse of WHOIS  
data.  These practices alone should (IMHO) be sufficient to deny  
that particular application.

On vaguely related news, I got the first .eu pre-registration spam 
today.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:01:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Redelegation issues

Dear Elizabeth,

I would appreciate getting your perspective on the article below (first 
posted to the NCDNHC list).  It raises the issue of what constitutes an 
appropriate redelegation process.  If a sovereign nation-state has passed 
laws stipulating that the local government will take over the 
responsibilities of the current TLD manager, does ICANN have the right to 
interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by refusing to 
redelegate until such time as there is agreement between the present 
administrator, government, and significant interested parties?  This strikes 
me as equivalent to the exercise of foreign policy powers (that I don't 
believe have ever been granted to ICANN by the US government).

I don't yet have a set opinion on this subject, so your thoughts would be of 
help in understanding the issue better.

From Business Day (South Africa) 3 June 2002

State's plan on internet domain names raises alarm Political
Correspondent CAPE TOWN A proposal by the parliamentary communications
committee to establish a section 21 company to manage domain names on
the internet in SA has raised alarm bells about a looming crisis that
could see all internet connections in the country cut off.

Supported by the communications department and the African National
Congress, the proposals in the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Bill on setting up a domain name authority are vehemently
opposed by opposition parties and the current administrator of the ZA
domain.

The committee plans to finalise and vote on the bill today . Much of the
chapter on the domain names was approved and voted on Friday but could
be discussed again today. Government is opposed to the current
administrative system for the ZA domain name, which it says is
"monopolistic" and without a regulatory framework to manage the expected
explosive growth of the internet.

Communications chairman Nkenke Kekana said that the domain name
authority had to be "representative, accountable to all South Africans
and proactive in promoting the internet".
In terms of the bill, the communications minister would appoint a panel
which would recommend nominated candidates to be appointed to the board
of a section 21 firm.

But domain name administrator Mike Lawrie, who is one of the cochairmen
of Namespace ZA, which will take over the administration in future, has
objected to the excessive powers the minister would wield over the
domain name system in SA.

Lawrie said this was "quite unacceptable". He warned of a "national
disaster", saying he would not hand over the administration if
government interference in the internet was provided for in law.

If Lawrie refused to get himself licensed as required by the bill, this
would mean he could no longer continue operating and that the
administration of the ZA domain name would collapse.
This would mean that normal internet and e-mail connections would no
longer function.

"The vast majority of internet connections in and into this country will
simply not happen, because the ZA domain name servers will grind to a
halt and make all subdomains of ZA totally unreachable," Lawrie said.

The gov.za domain name would also not work. "Parliament cannot pass
legislation and expect that the internet will kowtow to that
legislation. It does not work that way. The legislation must in keeping
with the standards of the internet, or it will lead to problems.

"There are very clear standards laid down for how a redelegation of a
country code domain shall take place," he said. For the redelegation to
meet international standards laid down by the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers there has to be agreement between Lawrie, as
the present administrator, government, and significant interested
parties.

Democratic Alliance communications spokeswoman Dene Smuts said the bill
"bald-facedly expropriates" the existing domain name authority. She
rejected government's rationale for a new administrative system, saying
a domain name authority did not and could not roll out services.

See also:
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2002/0206031206.asp?O=TE

Controversial ECT Bill discussions come to an end
BY PHILLIP DE WET, ITWEB NEWS EDITOR
[SNIP]
During the weekend, Andile Ngcaba, director-general of the Department of
Communications, said an amended version would see an intermediary panel
inserted into the process. The minister would appoint the independent 
panel, which would in turn appoint the directors of the domain
authority.

But current .za administrator Mike Lawrie, who has controlled the domain
since its inception, has vowed not to hand control over to a government
he believes not technically capable of handling the fragile system. He
has warned that domain names, and e-mail addresses, that use the popular
.co.za suffix could "go dark" due to improper management.

Lawrie has, since 1998, been involved in setting up an organisation to
take over from him. Such a body, Namespace SA, was formed in September
last  year. Government was invited to participate in the body and
appoint representatives to its board, but declined.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
is responsible for globally overseeing the domain name system, requires
the consent of the current administrator for any re-delegation of
responsibility.
[SNIP]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:44:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

I think that people outside the country, including ICANN, have a right to
make independent decisions concerning how they choose to react to a
country's exercise of its sovereign powers.  Conversely, I think a country
has the right to the substantially unfettered exercise of those powers --
at home.

Thus, if a country wants to regulate its ccTLD, it may.  If it wants to
nationalize it, it may subject to international norms on nationalizations.

But it can't *make* me do anything if I live abroad unless I choose to.

Suppose country X tortures a ccTLD admin into agreeing to a redelegation.
I think it might be perfectly appropriate to ignore that.

All this is of course separate from the question of what those of us
outside SA should do if this project goes forward; my point here is purely
that we have legal and moral freedom of action, not to suggest either that
the situation is anything like the torture hypo, nor that a particular
reaction is necessarily the correct one.

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Elizabeth,
> 
> I would appreciate getting your perspective on the article below (first 
> posted to the NCDNHC list).  It raises the issue of what constitutes an 
> appropriate redelegation process.  If a sovereign nation-state has passed 
> laws stipulating that the local government will take over the 
> responsibilities of the current TLD manager, does ICANN have the right to 
> interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by refusing to 
> redelegate until such time as there is agreement between the present 
> administrator, government, and significant interested parties?  This strikes 
> me as equivalent to the exercise of foreign policy powers (that I don't 
> believe have ever been granted to ICANN by the US government).
> 
> I don't yet have a set opinion on this subject, so your thoughts would be of 
> help in understanding the issue better.
> 
> >From Business Day (South Africa) 3 June 2002
> 
> State's plan on internet domain names raises alarm Political
> Correspondent CAPE TOWN A proposal by the parliamentary communications
> committee to establish a section 21 company to manage domain names on
> the internet in SA has raised alarm bells about a looming crisis that
> could see all internet connections in the country cut off.
> 
> Supported by the communications department and the African National
> Congress, the proposals in the Electronic Communications and
> Transactions Bill on setting up a domain name authority are vehemently
> opposed by opposition parties and the current administrator of the ZA
> domain.
> 
> The committee plans to finalise and vote on the bill today . Much of the
> chapter on the domain names was approved and voted on Friday but could
> be discussed again today. Government is opposed to the current
> administrative system for the ZA domain name, which it says is
> "monopolistic" and without a regulatory framework to manage the expected
> explosive growth of the internet.
> 
> Communications chairman Nkenke Kekana said that the domain name
> authority had to be "representative, accountable to all South Africans
> and proactive in promoting the internet".
> In terms of the bill, the communications minister would appoint a panel
> which would recommend nominated candidates to be appointed to the board
> of a section 21 firm.
> 
> But domain name administrator Mike Lawrie, who is one of the cochairmen
> of Namespace ZA, which will take over the administration in future, has
> objected to the excessive powers the minister would wield over the
> domain name system in SA.
> 
> Lawrie said this was "quite unacceptable". He warned of a "national
> disaster", saying he would not hand over the administration if
> government interference in the internet was provided for in law.
> 
> If Lawrie refused to get himself licensed as required by the bill, this
> would mean he could no longer continue operating and that the
> administration of the ZA domain name would collapse.
> This would mean that normal internet and e-mail connections would no
> longer function.
> 
> "The vast majority of internet connections in and into this country will
> simply not happen, because the ZA domain name servers will grind to a
> halt and make all subdomains of ZA totally unreachable," Lawrie said.
> 
> The gov.za domain name would also not work. "Parliament cannot pass
> legislation and expect that the internet will kowtow to that
> legislation. It does not work that way. The legislation must in keeping
> with the standards of the internet, or it will lead to problems.
> 
> "There are very clear standards laid down for how a redelegation of a
> country code domain shall take place," he said. For the redelegation to
> meet international standards laid down by the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers there has to be agreement between Lawrie, as
> the present administrator, government, and significant interested
> parties.
> 
> Democratic Alliance communications spokeswoman Dene Smuts said the bill
> "bald-facedly expropriates" the existing domain name authority. She
> rejected government's rationale for a new administrative system, saying
> a domain name authority did not and could not roll out services.
> 
> See also:
> http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2002/0206031206.asp?O=TE
> 
> Controversial ECT Bill discussions come to an end
> BY PHILLIP DE WET, ITWEB NEWS EDITOR
> [SNIP]
> During the weekend, Andile Ngcaba, director-general of the Department of
> Communications, said an amended version would see an intermediary panel
> inserted into the process. The minister would appoint the independent 
> panel, which would in turn appoint the directors of the domain
> authority.
> 
> But current .za administrator Mike Lawrie, who has controlled the domain
> since its inception, has vowed not to hand control over to a government
> he believes not technically capable of handling the fragile system. He
> has warned that domain names, and e-mail addresses, that use the popular
> ..co.za suffix could "go dark" due to improper management.
> 
> Lawrie has, since 1998, been involved in setting up an organisation to
> take over from him. Such a body, Namespace SA, was formed in September
> last  year. Government was invited to participate in the body and
> appoint representatives to its board, but declined.
> 
> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
> is responsible for globally overseeing the domain name system, requires
> the consent of the current administrator for any re-delegation of
> responsibility.
> [SNIP]
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1258
*************************