Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1450
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1450

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:59:39 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Wrong List (wasRe: [ga] regulating content

Dear Peter,

I register high regard for all of your comments regarding the sovereignty of
ccTLDs as right on the mark.
They all should run their own show using their distinctive community customs and
practices.
It is in fact a great pleasure to see the diversity yet cooperativeness between
them.

However this is a great place to discuss the issues.  It must be remembered we
are not a policy making body but a policy discussing body.  Our decisions are
only a reflection of our group opinions.
I for one have learned greatly by this discussion, and this is the point.  You
have marketed ccTLDs and your position quite well here.

Please do not put a black out on such great outreach.

Eric

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> Thanks Jeff,
>  as previously posted, matters of individual cctlds are not the preserve of
> this list.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] regulating content
>
> > Danny,
> >
> > To date, other than receiving spam to the .kids.us policy e-mail box,
> there
> > has not been any substantive comments received by NeuStar. That being
> said,
> > in the event that NeuStar receives any substantive comments regarding the
> > .kids.us policy paper, we will post those comments as soon as the comment
> > period has ended.
> >
> > Also, I would ask that all future questions regarding .us be addressed on
> > .us's own public mailing list which can be accessed at:
> > http://lists.neustar.biz/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-forum.
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > [email-masked]
> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:08 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] regulating content
> >
> >
> > Dear Jeff,
> >
> > I note that you have extended the comment period on your first discussion
> > draft of content guidelines and requirements for the kids.us namespace
> > posted
> > at http://www.neustar.us/kids/kidsus_content_policy.pdf
> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > 1.  Are the public comments on this draft posted anywhere?
> > 2.  What input have you received from the .us Policy Council on this topic
> > and where might that input be found?
> > 3.  When did the .us Policy Council last meet?
> > 4.  When is their next meeting scheduled?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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, 30 Sep 2002 23:18:07 -0400
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

But Karl, ICANN was never formed to be an advocacy (though there were those
who were naive enough to "feel" it was).  I think you and I are on the same
track (see my message re: PUCO), but you are comparing an apple to an
orange.  I consider ICANN to be another of the organizations to be
watched/served by such a representative advocacy.

Gene...

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Karl
Auerbach
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I disagree with a couple points Karl.  Public utility commissions are
> properly equipped to perform their regulatory role and they provide
> procedures of due process; that makes them a very poor comparison with
> ICANN.

I read the situation the other way round - Public Utility Commissions
(usually) do a decent job trying to do their job; ICANN doesn't.  It isn't
the job that is the difference, it is the competency (or lack thereof)
with which the job is done (or not done.)

ICANN is created to server the public interest - it says so right there in
the Articles of Incorporation.  It is odd indeed that a body that is so
dedicated should work for so long and with such determination to exclude
the public from its forums while, at the same time, elevate and empower
those bodies that, as a general matter, see the public as the source of
their income.

> ICANN was given a very narrow mission

ICANN may have been "given" a narrow mission but it as grabbed and pulled
and insinuated itself into jobs to the point where ICANN has become a
supranational legislature of trademarks, judge and jury of trademarks, and
policeman of trademarks.  It has also become the micromanager of a myriad
forms of DNS businesses.

Virtually none of this has anything to do with the technical stability of
the internet - i.e. the ability of the net to swiftly, accurately, and
reliably move IP packets from source to destination addresses, and the
ability of ICANN's root to swiftly, accurately, and reliably delegate DNS
queries to TLD servers.

> Also, I know its popular to think that ICANN is captured by those it
> regulates, and for our own business interests, I almost wish that was the
> case.

One has only to look at the gift of .com in perpetuity and of the
withholding of new TLD slots from those who wish to enter the domain name
marketplace and thus benefiting the incumbents.

		--karl--

- --
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, 30 Sep 2002 20:49:21 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

This analysis is certainly correct on one side of the coin.

But on the other side of the coin are existing international treaties.
No, there is not one I am aware of that specifically addresses these exact
points. (there is at least one pending where the issues are addressed, I believe
it is AFTA)
However almost every nation, that would care about these issues is a member of
some sort of trade agreement.
Those international trade agreements almost universally require adherences to
International Standards and practices regarding international trade, certainly
the Internet is a mechanism of that trade.
So it is clearly easy for us to pronounce sovereignty of ccTLD internets but not
really, black and white.
This is especially true for economically developing countries with less than
equal bargaining power.

Eric

DPF wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400, "Neuman, Jeff"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
> >also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> >"global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
> >body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> >community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> >Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
> >Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.
>
> I have to strongly disagree that these issues would be suitable for
> global policies binding on all ccTLDs.
>
> .nz has spent a massive amount of time consulting with local users on
> exactly these issues and the suggestion that the will of the local
> internet community should be subservient to an ICANN process is not
> one which would find favour.  DIfferent countries have different laws
> relating to privacy, consumer protection, trademarks so the whole
> notion of global policies over all 245 ccTLDs is never going to
> happen.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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, 30 Sep 2002 22:18:49 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency/ccTLD

Danny and Peter,
Thank you both for your wonderful contributions.

The system is not perfect and there are glitches and economics involved
- -
however;

a ccTLD is by its' very essence, theoretically representative of the
relevant
user community.
They are controlled in some way by the governments of that country and
governments by in
large are legitimate. I am sure you can give exceptions but as a general
rule
they are run for the
benefit of the electorate.

Therefor while we may need to straighten out some kinks, the system has
built
into it representativeness.

Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Peter,
>
> I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that you have asked,
> "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and registrars to sit
> around the table with their user community?"
>
> In light of this question, can you identify the functional mechanism by which
> relevant user community input will be respected within the proposed ccSO?
> Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer some structural
> guidance to the GNSO...
>
> best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:37:34 -0400
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Monday 30 September 2002 09:58 pm, Don Brown wrote:
> Of course, but the point missed or avoided is that the Registries are
> akin to mini-monopolies.  If it wasn't for that stark differentiation,
> Free Enterprise would be the best course.

Of course they are.  And so are insurance companies, discount chains, real 
estate developers and automobile manufacturers.  Each has a monopoly on its 
own product, many of which are similar to other products in the marketplace.  
There is nothing wrong with what you are calling a monopoly unless there is 
no other product from which to choose.  Now that is the real issue.  
ICANN/DoC have prevented others from freely entering the marketplace, making 
ICANN/DoC the monopolists - not the registries.  The entire point is to have 
multiple registries offering similar products in order to open the 
competition to all comers.  Accomplish that and the problem is solved.

If you don't like your health or life insurance policy, just look around.  
There are other companies offering similar products.  Some are good and 
reliable while others may be smaller, newer and you may question how reliable 
they are.  However, you have the choice to change from one to the other.  In 
some cases, it may not even be that easy to make such a change due to 
dependencies on a particular policy.  BUT you do have the choice.  The same 
is true for automobiles.  If you don't like Chevy, buy Ford or Toyota or 
Acura, or any other of a gazilion makes and models.  Don't like your local 
department store?  Go to another.

Let's not stay bogged down in haggling over whether ICANN should be the 
designer of businesses using the DNS or allowing newcomers into the business 
at all.  ICANN's job is to make sure the DNS WORKS, period.  Well it worked 
before ICANN and will work after ICANN.

Leah

- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 01:43:32 -0400
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Monday 30 September 2002 09:33 pm, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> Just let me clarify something for the record.  I never said that there
> would be supreme body that would make global policies "binding" on all of
> the ccTLDs.  My posting merely was meant to say that ICANN would be a good
> forum to discuss these issues and come to some sort of best practices for
> global policy matters.
>
>
> As a representative of a ccTLD, I certainly understand there are
> differences in National Laws that would make having certain uniform
> policies binding on all ccTLDs.  But lets not use the shield of local
> law/local culture for every single policy issue.  After all, maybe someone
> can educate me here, but I am aware of no law/cultural issue that would
> prohibit the
> implementation of a Redemption Grace Period (as one example).  I admit I
> could be wrong and I am willing to listen.
>
>
> Yes, there are certain issues where local law can come into effect (i.e.,
> trademark law, privacy, etc.).  But it seems to me that often times ccTLDs
> hide behind that shield to basically state that there can never be any
> global policy issues.  After all, when local law/culture is not implicated,
> what is the harm in trying to come together, building consensus and
> standardizing some policy issues for the global internet community (whether
> it is a ccTLD or a gTLD).

Please enlighten me.  When has there ever been "consensus" within the ICANN 
framework other than among the board members, who are led by staff?  If you 
are referring to "community consensus," sadly it is always ignored.

I think the ccTLDs have made it fairly clear that they do not accept the 
global policy rationale and that they have reached consensus on that point.  
If there is to be a consideration for consensus, the argument should be 
ended.

Leah

- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 02:07:59 -0400
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] regulating content

On Monday 30 September 2002 02:22 pm, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 2) We have not yet discussed the current proposed policy, but in our last
> call we did discuss the .kids legislation and NeuStar's attempt to launch
> the .kids.us TLD. Other topics for discussion next week's call in addition
> to the .kids policy, nexis requirements, reporting false Whois and one
> other issue that currently escapes me.

??? Since when is kids.us a TLD?  It is an SLD.  Moreover, SLDs are not 
supposed to be in any way governed by ICANN.  They are the responsibility of 
the SLD holder just as any of us who register a domain in .com may then 
delegate subdomains.  It simply becomes a much larger responsibility for the 
SLD holder as well as the TLD holder to ensure the viability of the delegated 
domains.  

Leah

- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 11:22:42 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD
Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:57:40 +1200, you wrote:

>It is also true that there are areas where coordinated action between ICANN
and the ccTLDs could benefit both of them.

Interesting semantics -ICANNis supposed to be the coordinator of the
players, including the ccTLds and, say the Address registries. Interesting
that it has a role of its own, and we are expected to coordinate with it....

>For example, since there is to be
some form of At Large membership, perhaps the ccTLDs who already have it or
want to have it could share the burden of registering individuals, so users
would sign up once for ICANN and for their ccTLDs, and the general workload
to maintain this membership would be smaller. This is definitely something
that the users and the ccSO should discuss in the near future.

I have facilitated the presence of At Large speakers at several of the past
ICANN meetings, but have to say that the cctlds are little interested in
this sort of additional work load.

>Again, I agree with your view, and I agree that ccTLDs should not be forced
to adopt policies that they don't like (instead, they should be encouraged
to do so by the fact that those policies are good, and that most other
ccTLDs are adopting them). Anyway, since there are policies that would
benefit from central coordination - just to name one, WHOIS uniformity
across the ccTLDs

Excuse me, but a policy cannot benefit from coordination  -some of the
participants might.In this case, there are huge local law issues that make
it certain that a uniform approach to whois is most unlikely -for the
forseeable. See the recent lawsuit threated against Nominet in the UK as a
recent example of the local policy/ local law in operation. The fact that
there is an enormously passionate dabate in (just) the g space on whois
issues( trade mark owners/biz vs individual privacy/ safety, for eg) might
indicate that when you take this issue and muliply it by 190 culural and
legal flavours you are going to get a complex cocktail, not a milkshake...

- - there must be a way for the ccSO to develop such
policies at a central level, with the input of the users too. This is why we
(as the ALAC Advisory Group) suggested that there should be an At Large
liaison to the ccSO Council. I would strongly suggest, for example, that
when the ccSO sets up working groups it should include a representative of
the ALAC in them. Would you consider this?

Yes. We have had a DNSO liaison Group for some time, are working with the
GAC on regional liaision and expect to establish other formal liaison
systems with others.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
ccAdcom Meeting Chair

- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 11:59:06 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <snips

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:25 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> .  But as you
> well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not restricted to their own
> geographical region; they function essentially like gTLD registries on a
> global basis.

Name them.

Then, prove that their operations are outside the scope of the sovereign
power.

In those cases, I see little difference between ccTLDs and
> gTLDs because users expand beyond local boarders and associated policy
> issues are the pretty much the same.

Oh, puleeze!
You know perfectly well that the fact that their users might have more than
one geographic location makes them  NOTHING like a gtld. They have a local
internet community -you have none -they have a single national government
making unitary laws -you have the GAC to compensate for the lack of a single
legal system  -they exist to serve their LIC, as trustees while your rights
derive from a contract with ICANN and are absent any notion of
trusteeship.... the list is large and unanswerable.

When your right to run dot com is answerable to the dot commoners, you might
be approaching conditions akin to a cctld.

Give this one away, Chuck.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
ccAdcom Meeting Chair

- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 12:32:22 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
trims
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
> also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a
global
> body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and
(5)
> Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.
>
>

For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going to
regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
reality.

There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
requirements within the local law.

Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its people
believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its an
ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow is
quite misguided.

Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.

If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
definition of "well".

If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
that -that is its choice.

It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
distinction from the gtlds.

It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving complaints of
cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
because others were registering their brands as domain names?

Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or they
don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to do
with it.

Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this kind of
foolishness is.

The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these issues
can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.

Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever wonder
why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the Netherlands,
all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the list?

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
ccAdcom Meeting Chair

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- --
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, 30 Sep 2002 23:39:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Dear Leah,

I think we should peel one more layer off the Onion.

dotCom should be looked at as a ccTLD controlled by the USG.
We are looking at these TLDs backwards.  If it is controlled by a country, which
dotCOM clearly is then it is a ccTLD.  If it is not and is open and inclusive
then it should be a gTLD based upon free enterprise and the market.  Some domains
under some TLDs should be worth 500$ USD and some should be worth 2 cents.

Yes ICANN should only worry about functionality and not market or control.

At least it is another way to look at it.
eric

Leah Gallegos wrote:

> Karen and Don:
>
> In reality, IMO, the bottom line is that ICANN should have little or nothing
> to do with dictating how a registry should operate, nor should it have
> anything to do with pricing or consumer protection.  The only area where
> ICANN should be involved is determination of whether the registry can operate
> technically to provide the required service to the community.
>
> As in any other business, the consumer will decide whether he wants to do
> business wth a particular company.  If they get
> good service for reasonable prices, they will come back.  If not, they will
> leave.
>
> I think the only possible exception would be in the case of of the .com
> registry since it was handed to a firm by the USG.  That seems to imply some
> sort of control or regulation.

<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, 01 Oct 2002 19:51:35 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:33:21 -0400, "Neuman, Jeff"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Just let me clarify something for the record.  I never said that there would
>be supreme body that would make global policies "binding" on all of the
>ccTLDs.  My posting merely was meant to say that ICANN would be a good forum
>to discuss these issues and come to some sort of best practices guidelines for global
>policy matters.

I would say that ICANN "could" be a good forum to discuss ccTLD best
practices but only if it there is a radical behavioral change from
ICANN.

ICANN's recent blackmail tactics regarding the IANA database and name
server changes scare the crap out of a lot of ccTLDs and the very real
fear is that an ICANN co-ordinated best practice document one day
would become a requirement the next day to have a name server change
etc.  Not at all far fetched is it?

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 01 Oct 2002 11:25:57 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:49:12 -0400, you wrote:

>How can you reconcile a central level with regards to policy for cctld's when 
>the point has been made over and over again that each cctld falls under the 
>laws and conventions of its own country?  Once more, if a country has laws 
>that prohibit a public whois, how can a central policy that mandates a public 
>whois be reconciled?  Answer:  it cannot.  cctlds have to be able to 
>determine policies for themselves, only governed by what their indiividual 
>countries alllow.
>
>IMO, if there is to be any cooperation by the cctlds with ICANN, ICANN must 
>recognize the autonomy of the cctlds.

That's exactly what I have been saying in my message :-) However, there is a
number of things that should be standardized as much as possible. For
example: it is true that some ccTLDs might choose (or be forced by local
law) not to publish a registrant's home address, but those who do should
possibly use the same format so that when you make WHOIS queries around the
world you are sure about how to read the result whenever available. Simple
things like that, free to adopt for any TLD that likes them, can make life
easier to all users without limiting the TLD's freedom - and in fact are
what I would consider a correct interpretation of the role of "coordinator".
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 04:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: robert blacky <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Rejoining the list after a lengthy absense.  It
doesn't seem to have changed much.

- --- Peter Dengate Thrush <[email-masked]>
wrote:

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <snips
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:25 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD 
RegistryConstituency

> 
> > .  But as you
> > well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not
> restricted to their own
> > geographical region; they function essentially
> like gTLD registries on a
> > global basis.
> 
> Name them.

I believe that .tv, .ws, .to, .cc, .bz are all
actively marketed world-wide.  

> Then, prove that their operations are outside the
> scope of the sovereign
> power.

All tlds, without exception, operate within the scope
of sovereign power.   I believe, also, that many
ccTLDs base their operations outside of the region
identified by the TLD name,
including some of those mentioned above.

> In those cases, I see little difference between
> ccTLDs and
> > gTLDs because users expand beyond local boarders
> and associated policy
> > issues are the pretty much the same.
> 
> Oh, puleeze!
> You know perfectly well that the fact that their
> users might have more than
> one geographic location makes them  NOTHING like a
> gtld.

> They have a local
> internet community -you have none -they have a
> single national government
> making unitary laws -you have the GAC to compensate
> for the lack of a single
> legal system  -they exist to serve their LIC, as
> trustees while your rights
> derive from a contract with ICANN and are absent any
> notion of
> trusteeship.... the list is large and unanswerable.

There are differences.  However, there are also
considerable similarities.

> When your right to run dot com is answerable to the
> dot commoners, you might
> be approaching conditions akin to a cctld.

The Network Solutions is just as answerable to the US
government, 
as Nominet is to the UK government.  Network Solutions
is just as susceptible to lawsuits in the US as
Nominet is in the UK.  Both operate under the
constraints of their respective soveriegn.

Bob

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 10:14:51 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.

And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
of policy within the DNSO.

This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have with
ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the expense
of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up that
ball and run with it.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> trims
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However,
we
> > also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> > "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a
> global
> > body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the
local
> > community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> > Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and
> (5)
> > Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.
> >
> >
>
> For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going to
> regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> reality.
>
> There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> requirements within the local law.
>
> Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
people
> believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its an
> ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow is
> quite misguided.
>
> Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
>
> If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> definition of "well".
>
> If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> that -that is its choice.
>
> It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> distinction from the gtlds.
>
> It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving complaints
of
> cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
> stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> because others were registering their brands as domain names?
>
> Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or they
> don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to do
> with it.
>
> Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this kind
of
> foolishness is.
>
> The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these issues
> can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
>
> Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever wonder
> why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
Netherlands,
> all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
list?
>
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> ccAdcom Meeting Chair
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1450
*************************