Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1648
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, March 27 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1648

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:14:57 +0900 (JST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IDN-admin should be a recommendation, not mandatory.

FYI,

>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:10:13 +0900 (JST)
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: IDN-admin should be a recommendation, not mandatory.
>From: [email-masked]
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>This might be late, but I still want to say:
>
>I think points 2 to 5 should not be made mandatory.  Only point 1
>should be mandatory, but all other points should be recommendations.
>
>In Taipei JET meeting, I heard that the IDN-admin is expected to be
>released as an "Informational RFC".  I strongly against to a proposal
>that ICANN mandates something that are not techinical standards but
>only informational.  Also I have to point out that IDN-admin is still
>in its draft stage.  In additon, JET formally decided that they do not
>ensure effectivity of IDN-amdin to languages other CJK.  Why ICANN
>wants to mandate such ambiguous things?  I think such an approach is
>not consistent with the principle exactly stated in the March 13 ICANN
>document:
>
>:      The deployment of IDNA within existing
>:          top-level domain registries is fundamentally a registry
>:     responsibility, and the registries will be in the best position to
>:   make appropriate implementation decisions themselves, and should have
>:    the freedom to make adjustments as experience dictates.
>
>I would like to ask the Board to take my point into account.
>
>Best resgards.
>
>----
>(Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
>Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
>[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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:41:06 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 16:04 25/03/03, Gene Marsh said:
>The simplest explanation is that US DoC/ICANN/IANA owns and controls the
>Internet and will do whatever they want with it.  And if you don't like it
>they won't stand in your way, but good luck.

True. In the Congress vision: 47 USC 230 (f)(1).

ICANN as a de facto US private agency and a contractor of the USG (IANA 
contract), as well as Verisign (cooperation agreement) are bound to respect 
the US law.

We would spare ourselves a lot of unncessary disputes, and could proceed 
quickly, should we start with a lexical definition of the words we use. The 
constant confusion made between net, nets, Internet and internet, as used 
in different dated or conceptual perspectives, is totally bluring the 
debate and our ability to understand each other and what we are talking about.

I would be very happy would some(one) of good English command and interest 
in the global namespace (yet not belonging to any DNSect) be interested in 
co-drafting an IETF ID on the global datanetworks name space organization, 
as discussed on the IETF DNS mailing list. After considering this, I think 
that to get a consensus base, the authors must come from technical, 
societal/economical, political and network analysis different points of views.

jfc

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:38:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[ga]_IDN-admin_should_be_a_recommendation,_not_mandatory.?=

Dear Interested,

I do not get this message.  It appears that some people think the 
RFCs are mandates/laws/rules.  They are not.
They are advisories published by supposed professionals. They are equivalant 
to articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. And those usually pump 
drugs rather than other approaches.

Eric

> FYI,
> 
>>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:10:13 +0900 (JST)
>>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: IDN-admin should be a recommendation, not mandatory.
>>From: [email-masked]
>>
>>Dear Sir,
>>
>>This might be late, but I still want to say:
>>
>>I think points 2 to 5 should not be made mandatory.  Only point 1
>>should be mandatory, but all other points should be recommendations.
>>
>>In Taipei JET meeting, I heard that the IDN-admin is expected to be
>>released as an "Informational RFC".  I strongly against to a proposal
>>that ICANN mandates something that are not techinical standards but
>>only informational.  Also I have to point out that IDN-admin is still
>>in its draft stage.  In additon, JET formally decided that they do not
>>ensure effectivity of IDN-amdin to languages other CJK.  Why ICANN
>>wants to mandate such ambiguous things?  I think such an approach is
>>not consistent with the principle exactly stated in the March 13 ICANN
>>document:
>>
>>:      The deployment of IDNA within existing
>>:          top-level domain registries is fundamentally a registry :   
>> responsibility, and the registries will be in the best position to :  
>>make appropriate implementation decisions themselves, and should have :
>>   the freedom to make adjustments as experience dictates.
>>
>>I would like to ask the Board to take my point into account.
>>
>>Best resgards.
>>
>>----
>>(Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
>>Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
>>[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

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:30:00 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Michael Froomkin wrote:
>
>I cannot prove to you a negative, but I have searched high and low -- I am
>writing an article about this very issue -- and it is my contention to you
>that not a single one of these four sources exists to support the
>proposition that a state "owns" the ccTLD whose TLD is identical to the
>ISO country code associated with that state as a matter of public
>international law. [It cannot be international private law as there is
>neither treaty nor contract to support this claim.] Note, in this context,
>that the ISO is itself a private body.  If the matter is so obvious,
>surely someone could come up with a citation prior to the GAC's
>declaration that this rule was already a fact?

I did not search high and low, so I'm speaking only from impressions and 
without facts.
I believe Prof. Froomkin to be correct: I would be very much surprised if 
such legal foundation did formally exist, given the way the IANA delegation 
of the cc started.

However, there has been an attempt to root the ccTLDs in the related 
country, proven at least by two facts:
- - no delegation has been granted (in the early days) against the will of the 
government of the country owning the ISO-3166 code string
- - some (weak) requirement of location of the registry have been introduced

Of course, as noted repeatedly by numerous witnesses of the early days of 
the Internet, Ion Postel was operating in a situation in which there was 
simply a lack of legal international infrastructure, operating a formally 
private service with the understanding (by him, but not necessarily by 
everybody else) that the service might have acquired world-wide relevance. 
Hence, IANA avoided getting trapped into "what is a legitimate country" and 
relied on an international standard, i.e. ISO-3166, and "best judgement" 
(given the circumstances) about the delegation.

The great scheme of things was:
- - a set of country-related TLDs, managed in principle by each sovereign 
country in ways that they would best choose, given the different political 
and economical model (centralized, decentralized, state-owned, privately 
owned, subcontracted, etc.);
- - a set of general-purpose TLDs, not related to a specific geography, and 
delegated via a bid process.

For the second part, we all know how it ended. But this had a disastrous 
effect also on the first part, because it is simply the artificial shortage 
of gTLDs that has increased the interest in ccTLDs.

Back to the original points in the thread:
1. Yes, indeed, there is currently no international legal framework that 
assigns the ccTLDs to the country that owns the corresponding ISO-3166 code, 
which means that in principle any ccTLD could be delegated to any 
organization. The question is: should an international legal framework be 
created? Or, put it differently, is it reasonable that a sovereign country 
has control on a unique resource that identifies it in the Internet? If the 
answer is yes, the second question will obviously be how to manage the (few) 
situations in which this is currently not the case. On this subject, Prof. 
Froomkin might have more experience, but I believe that it happens all the 
time that private interests collide with public interests, and there are 
ways to pay off the private business (think about building a new highway on 
private property, for instance).
2. Prof. Mueller's paper, that I still lack the time to digest in its 
entirety, seems to me to provide an important contribution to the debate. 
Personally, I do believe that in one way or the other ICANN has to come up 
with a reasonable solution to the delegation of new TLDs, we might as well 
discuss how. To delay this process further is not an option.

Another point was brought by John Berryhill, namely the way to "force" the 
root operator, subject to the law of his/her country, to obey a redelegation 
mandated by a different country, using these words:
>
>...  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?

We can all see that these days this type of solution can be applied as 
alternative to international law, but I still think that there are better 
ways to operate. What about to have the A-root under international 
jurisdiction? I know, it's not the first time I say that, but I thought 
that, given the current international situation, this should be restated.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:39:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting comments.

I consider the rfc 1591 requirement for local residence to be a fairly
strong pointer and guarantee of local control.  The government can always
regulate a domiciliary or resident. If the ccTLD management is
non-resident, without the government's permission, this is cause for
re-delegation, and should there be one in this case the delegee has little
or no valid ground to complain.

Because I take this view, I think the need for a more formalized and
internationalized system is low.  I also think the precedential effect of
making a private address resident on private equipment subject to
international regulation would on the whole be negative.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >
> >I cannot prove to you a negative, but I have searched high and low -- I am
> >writing an article about this very issue -- and it is my contention to you
> >that not a single one of these four sources exists to support the
> >proposition that a state "owns" the ccTLD whose TLD is identical to the
> >ISO country code associated with that state as a matter of public
> >international law. [It cannot be international private law as there is
> >neither treaty nor contract to support this claim.] Note, in this context,
> >that the ISO is itself a private body.  If the matter is so obvious,
> >surely someone could come up with a citation prior to the GAC's
> >declaration that this rule was already a fact?
> 
> I did not search high and low, so I'm speaking only from impressions and 
> without facts.
> I believe Prof. Froomkin to be correct: I would be very much surprised if 
> such legal foundation did formally exist, given the way the IANA delegation 
> of the cc started.
> 
> However, there has been an attempt to root the ccTLDs in the related 
> country, proven at least by two facts:
> - no delegation has been granted (in the early days) against the will of the 
> government of the country owning the ISO-3166 code string
> - some (weak) requirement of location of the registry have been introduced
> 
> Of course, as noted repeatedly by numerous witnesses of the early days of 
> the Internet, Ion Postel was operating in a situation in which there was 
> simply a lack of legal international infrastructure, operating a formally 
> private service with the understanding (by him, but not necessarily by 
> everybody else) that the service might have acquired world-wide relevance. 
> Hence, IANA avoided getting trapped into "what is a legitimate country" and 
> relied on an international standard, i.e. ISO-3166, and "best judgement" 
> (given the circumstances) about the delegation.
> 
> The great scheme of things was:
> - a set of country-related TLDs, managed in principle by each sovereign 
> country in ways that they would best choose, given the different political 
> and economical model (centralized, decentralized, state-owned, privately 
> owned, subcontracted, etc.);
> - a set of general-purpose TLDs, not related to a specific geography, and 
> delegated via a bid process.
> 
> For the second part, we all know how it ended. But this had a disastrous 
> effect also on the first part, because it is simply the artificial shortage 
> of gTLDs that has increased the interest in ccTLDs.
> 
> Back to the original points in the thread:
> 1. Yes, indeed, there is currently no international legal framework that 
> assigns the ccTLDs to the country that owns the corresponding ISO-3166 code, 
> which means that in principle any ccTLD could be delegated to any 
> organization. The question is: should an international legal framework be 
> created? Or, put it differently, is it reasonable that a sovereign country 
> has control on a unique resource that identifies it in the Internet? If the 
> answer is yes, the second question will obviously be how to manage the (few) 
> situations in which this is currently not the case. On this subject, Prof. 
> Froomkin might have more experience, but I believe that it happens all the 
> time that private interests collide with public interests, and there are 
> ways to pay off the private business (think about building a new highway on 
> private property, for instance).
> 2. Prof. Mueller's paper, that I still lack the time to digest in its 
> entirety, seems to me to provide an important contribution to the debate. 
> Personally, I do believe that in one way or the other ICANN has to come up 
> with a reasonable solution to the delegation of new TLDs, we might as well 
> discuss how. To delay this process further is not an option.
> 
> Another point was brought by John Berryhill, namely the way to "force" the 
> root operator, subject to the law of his/her country, to obey a redelegation 
> mandated by a different country, using these words:
> >
> >...  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?
> 
> We can all see that these days this type of solution can be applied as 
> alternative to international law, but I still think that there are better 
> ways to operate. What about to have the A-root under international 
> jurisdiction? I know, it's not the first time I say that, but I thought 
> that, given the current international situation, this should be restated.
> 
> Best regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 warm 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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:02:28 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] anyone lose the webcast?

I lost the feed and now get a file not found error in real player.  Anyone 
else?

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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:44:14 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Dear Roberto, Michael,

On 18:30 26/03/03, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Michael Froomkin wrote:
>I did not search high and low, so I'm speaking only from impressions and 
>without facts.

I report from being in charge of the final OK on the monopolies (States) 
side of the gateway to the Internet. There was NO public approach in ccTLDs 
- -cf. infra). It was only univesal consensus by then that "pirates" (people 
tunnelling a traffic under the public servce were mostly Telex priavte 
operators; hence the consensus on ISO 3166 2 letters). They were mostly in 
London and NY.

YES the 3 letters codes are legitimate TLDs to the States.
All this went by community consensus. No one really decided. Obvious to 
everyone.

>I believe Prof. Froomkin to be correct: I would be very much surprised if 
>such legal foundation did formally exist, given the way the IANA 
>delegation of the cc started.

The only document I find back is RFC 920 (cr. ICP-3). It is today the only 
source of legitimacy claimed by ICANN. There should have been an agreement 
by J. Egglerton, now with WorldCom further to our OK.

>However, there has been an attempt to root the ccTLDs in the related 
>country, proven at least by two facts:
>- no delegation has been granted (in the early days) against the will of 
>the government of the country owning the ISO-3166 code string
>- some (weak) requirement of location of the registry have been introduced
>
>Of course, as noted repeatedly by numerous witnesses of the early days of 
>the Internet, Ion Postel was operating in a situation in which there was 
>simply a lack of legal international infrastructure, operating a formally 
>private service with the understanding (by him, but not necessarily by 
>everybody else) that the service might have acquired world-wide relevance. 
>Hence, IANA avoided getting trapped into "what is a legitimate country" 
>and relied on an international standard, i.e. ISO-3166, and "best 
>judgement" (given the circumstances) about the delegation.

I would say this was very simple
- - consistency with other network sevices and monopolies (fax,  tel, 
telegrams, SITA, SWIFT)
- - insurance that a public list did exist by Govs that would respond to all 
the demands. When we started with ISO 3 letter codes in 78 it was no other 
reason than to be sure we would be consistent, polite and we would have no 
collisions. BTW we did not started with it immediately (hence UK).
- - cut and paste: everyone was doing the same. No idea who chose ISO 3166 at 
the very beginning. First time I saw it was probably in Sept 78, forwarded 
by Mike Rude. They had reserved the corresponding roots to avoid 
collisions. "Pirates" came long after as tuneling services (82?)
- - ignorance of where were a lot of these countries. They were on "the telex 
list".

  The great scheme of things was:
>- a set of country-related TLDs, managed in principle by each sovereign 
>country

Sovereign country?
"Sovereign" is used everywhere nowadays except with the legitame owners: 
States :-)

May be you want to put it slightly differently? Country related TLDs as per 
the geographical definition given by their legitimate ruling State through ISO.

The absolute proof about the States sovereignty involvement is very easy. 
It is the relation with the monopoly. All the States have a monopoly or a 
regulation authority, such as FCC. At that time everyone agreed that 
Datacoms were parts of the Telecoms. So you immediately know : has the Gov 
taken over the ccTLD when created/proposed? (They could not do otherwise if 
Internet was considered a public service, ie dependent from the 
public/national/state interest. Just because if it is consdiered 
as  public, it relates with foreign states controlled agencies and by ITU 
treaty they must interoperate).

How many ccTLD were ever ran my a state monopoly agency?

>In ways that they would best choose, given the different political and 
>economical model (centralized, decentralized, state-owned, privately 
>owned, subcontracted, etc.);
>- a set of general-purpose TLDs, not related to a specific geography, and 
>delegated via a bid process.

True ... if you  use "bide" in French :-)

>For the second part, we all know how it ended. But this had a disastrous 
>effect also on the first part, because it is simply the artificial 
>shortage of gTLDs that has increased the interest in ccTLDs.
>
>Back to the original points in the thread:
>1. Yes, indeed, there is currently no international legal framework that 
>assigns the ccTLDs to the country that owns the corresponding ISO-3166 
>code, which means that in principle any ccTLD could be delegated to any 
>organization. The question is: should an international legal framework be 
>created? Or, put it differently, is it reasonable that a sovereign country 
>has control on a unique resource that identifies it in the Internet? If 
>the answer is yes, the second question will obviously be how to manage the 
>(few) situations in which this is currently not the case. On this subject, 
>Prof. Froomkin might have more experience, but I believe that it happens 
>all the time that private interests collide with public interests, and 
>there are ways to pay off the private business (think about building a new 
>highway on private property, for instance).

You are here in a complex situation. Because no one knows what the internet 
legally is: Telecom or not? US has tought time with Copute Inquiy I, II, 
III. Since actually the Internet does not exist as a thing (no-net'sland) , 
only as an interntional concept. Actually it only exsits in 47 USC 230 
(f)(1). Or if there were other legal deifinitions round the world, they 
would collide.

>2. Prof. Mueller's paper, that I still lack the time to digest in its 
>entirety, seems to me to provide an important contribution to the debate. 
>Personally, I do believe that in one way or the other ICANN has to come up 
>with a reasonable solution to the delegation of new TLDs, we might as well 
>discuss how. To delay this process further is not an option.

ICANN has come with two ways. Please read ICP-3. The patch used in 2000 and 
consensus after experimentation: dot-root.

And frankly I do not see how it could come with anything else.

Either the internet is considered as the legacy system of Jon Postel and 
ICANN is in charge and cannot do otherwise. Either it is part of the 
Telecoms and the ITU-T is to be in charge. Or the Internet is a multlateral 
direct/indirect relation tool between individtuals and the local laws apply 
(USC claims to rule the entire network). Then, due to the direct 
international relations, there is a need for an international treaty 
organization. Since it is very close from Telecoms and uses extensively 
telecoms, and may be coming back into value added Telecom, ITU is probably 
advisable with the deifinition of an appopriate I Sector.

>Another point was brought by John Berryhill, namely the way to "force" the 
>root operator, subject to the law of his/her country, to obey a 
>redelegation mandated by a different country, using these words:

The error is by the local country to use a foreign root system. Every 
county / organization is grown enough to maintain its own IANA file 
provided the TLD Managers braodcast the information.

>>...  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?
>
>We can all see that these days this type of solution can be applied as 
>alternative to international law, but I still think that there are better 
>ways to operate. What about to have the A-root under international 
>jurisdiction? I know, it's not the first time I say that, but I thought 
>that, given the current international situation, this should be restated.

Complex transfer of a default service from the USA to an internatinal body. 
May be not the right move just today :-)

Why not just to accept the A-root for what it is the "American-root" and to 
have the different national agencies to maintain their own files or taking 
the other's files. We had very hard time ni he early days to get the 
concept throughn that all the operators could trust the same "intl" file 
and share their information to the public. Had we known ....

jfc

>Best regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/03

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:21:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Michael and all former DNSO GA members,

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting comments.
>
> I consider the rfc 1591 requirement for local residence to be a fairly
> strong pointer and guarantee of local control.  The government can always
> regulate a domiciliary or resident. If the ccTLD management is
> non-resident, without the government's permission, this is cause for
> re-delegation, and should there be one in this case the delegee has little
> or no valid ground to complain.

  I would concur with Micahael's statement here. Indeed the lack
of a governments permission of their respective ISO ccTLD that is
non-resident is a possible cause for redeligation for that ccTLD.

  However as this issue has been discussed, debated a number of times,
this contention is really not in reasonable dispute.

>
>
> Because I take this view, I think the need for a more formalized and
> internationalized system is low.  I also think the precedential effect of
> making a private address resident on private equipment subject to
> international regulation would on the whole be negative.

  Also agreed here as well.  However in that international regulation
is available presently, such a cause for redeligation is problematic.

>
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > >
> > >I cannot prove to you a negative, but I have searched high and low -- I am
> > >writing an article about this very issue -- and it is my contention to you
> > >that not a single one of these four sources exists to support the
> > >proposition that a state "owns" the ccTLD whose TLD is identical to the
> > >ISO country code associated with that state as a matter of public
> > >international law. [It cannot be international private law as there is
> > >neither treaty nor contract to support this claim.] Note, in this context,
> > >that the ISO is itself a private body.  If the matter is so obvious,
> > >surely someone could come up with a citation prior to the GAC's
> > >declaration that this rule was already a fact?
> >
> > I did not search high and low, so I'm speaking only from impressions and
> > without facts.
> > I believe Prof. Froomkin to be correct: I would be very much surprised if
> > such legal foundation did formally exist, given the way the IANA delegation
> > of the cc started.
> >
> > However, there has been an attempt to root the ccTLDs in the related
> > country, proven at least by two facts:
> > - no delegation has been granted (in the early days) against the will of the
> > government of the country owning the ISO-3166 code string
> > - some (weak) requirement of location of the registry have been introduced
> >
> > Of course, as noted repeatedly by numerous witnesses of the early days of
> > the Internet, Ion Postel was operating in a situation in which there was
> > simply a lack of legal international infrastructure, operating a formally
> > private service with the understanding (by him, but not necessarily by
> > everybody else) that the service might have acquired world-wide relevance.
> > Hence, IANA avoided getting trapped into "what is a legitimate country" and
> > relied on an international standard, i.e. ISO-3166, and "best judgement"
> > (given the circumstances) about the delegation.
> >
> > The great scheme of things was:
> > - a set of country-related TLDs, managed in principle by each sovereign
> > country in ways that they would best choose, given the different political
> > and economical model (centralized, decentralized, state-owned, privately
> > owned, subcontracted, etc.);
> > - a set of general-purpose TLDs, not related to a specific geography, and
> > delegated via a bid process.
> >
> > For the second part, we all know how it ended. But this had a disastrous
> > effect also on the first part, because it is simply the artificial shortage
> > of gTLDs that has increased the interest in ccTLDs.
> >
> > Back to the original points in the thread:
> > 1. Yes, indeed, there is currently no international legal framework that
> > assigns the ccTLDs to the country that owns the corresponding ISO-3166 code,
> > which means that in principle any ccTLD could be delegated to any
> > organization. The question is: should an international legal framework be
> > created? Or, put it differently, is it reasonable that a sovereign country
> > has control on a unique resource that identifies it in the Internet? If the
> > answer is yes, the second question will obviously be how to manage the (few)
> > situations in which this is currently not the case. On this subject, Prof.
> > Froomkin might have more experience, but I believe that it happens all the
> > time that private interests collide with public interests, and there are
> > ways to pay off the private business (think about building a new highway on
> > private property, for instance).
> > 2. Prof. Mueller's paper, that I still lack the time to digest in its
> > entirety, seems to me to provide an important contribution to the debate.
> > Personally, I do believe that in one way or the other ICANN has to come up
> > with a reasonable solution to the delegation of new TLDs, we might as well
> > discuss how. To delay this process further is not an option.
> >
> > Another point was brought by John Berryhill, namely the way to "force" the
> > root operator, subject to the law of his/her country, to obey a redelegation
> > mandated by a different country, using these words:
> > >
> > >...  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?
> >
> > We can all see that these days this type of solution can be applied as
> > alternative to international law, but I still think that there are better
> > ways to operate. What about to have the A-root under international
> > jurisdiction? I know, it's not the first time I say that, but I thought
> > that, given the current international situation, this should be restated.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 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 warm 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:22:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] anyone lose the webcast?

Leah and all former DNSO GA members,

  Yes, same here.  Of course this should be expected given ICANN's
lack of technical expertise.

L. Gallegos wrote:

> I lost the feed and now get a file not found error in real player.  Anyone
> else?
>
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:50:59 -0800
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] anyone lose the webcast?

Sounds like the server dropped the feed from the encoder. Is there a copy of
the .rm file anywhere.

Todd

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] anyone lose the webcast?

Leah and all former DNSO GA members,

  Yes, same here.  Of course this should be expected given ICANN's
lack of technical expertise.

L. Gallegos wrote:

> I lost the feed and now get a file not found error in real player.  Anyone
> else?
>
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:32:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] anyone lose the webcast?

Todd and all former DNSO GA members,

  I did look for it.  Thanks for bringing attention to that Todd.
I should have commented on that as well previously.  I could not
find a copy of it in the obvious places....

  Looks to me, though I hope I am mistaken, that we will yet
again end up with some "Gaps" in the tale of the tape. so to
speak...

todd glassey wrote:

> Sounds like the server dropped the feed from the encoder. Is there a copy of
> the .rm file anywhere.
>
> Todd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] anyone lose the webcast?
>
> Leah and all former DNSO GA members,
>
>   Yes, same here.  Of course this should be expected given ICANN's
> lack of technical expertise.
>
> L. Gallegos wrote:
>
> > I lost the feed and now get a file not found error in real player.  Anyone
> > else?
> >
> > 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
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> ================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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 #1648
*************************