Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #728
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 8 2001         Volume 01 : Number 728

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

Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 20:31:09 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 22:19:41 -0700, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 10:08:10 PM, DPF wrote:
>
>>>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
>>>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
>>>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
>>>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
>>>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
>>>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
>
>> William - get real.  ICANN if it tried to do that would split the root
>> within weeks.
>
>Never happen.

On the contrary.  I am in no way (like William) a supporter of the alt
root community.  However if ICANN tried to redelegate dozens of ccTLDs
against their will and that of their Government there would be a
dedicated root server for the ccTLDs within weeks.

Even without that you would have meltdown.  ICANN for example could
try and take .uk away from Nominet but with hundreds of ISPs in the UK
all using Nominet they would beyond doubt all continue to recognise
Nominet.

>> Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
>> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)
>
>Most of those Governments simple do not OPPOSE their delegations.
>What do you think the GAC is all about?  The governments feels they
>don't have ENOUGH control over their ccTLDs, and what to see ICANN
>give the more control.

Not at all.  The NZ Government has specifically recognised for example
InternetNZ as the .nz manager.  NZ Govt is also a very active
participant in GAC but not because it wants to control the .nz ccTLD.

Many Govts are in GAC to stop the US Government being the only
Government of influence.  Others are there to protect their interests
or to stop mission creep in GAC.

>The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.

Of course they have.  But only up until the point they work with the
Govt.  What you propose William is ICANN taking away the ccTLD
registry from the current operator and giving to an overseas body, all
with no consultation with the Government.

Now let me tell you if that was to be attempted all wrath would break
free as ccTLD managers tell their Government the registry for their
country code is moving overseas due to the US Govt and a US based
corporation.

There would be angry phonecalls to the US Government and not to minor
bureaucrats in DOC but from Heads of Governments to the US Secretary
of State.  The wrath would be so great that ICANN would be left
without even permission to tie its own shoelaces.

Now if you think what I say isn't true, then why do you think ICANN
haven't moved against the ccTLDs as you suggest?  Do you think it is
because they are nice patient people who would rather negotiate things
or because they already pushed in that position and found they didn't
have a shit show in hell of coming close to succeeding.

The ccTLDs are possibly the only thing standing in the way of ICANN
becoming what ICANNWATCH fears -a global law making policy with no
restraints.  So I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the ccTLDs and
cheerlead for ICANN to move against them.

Also as a final point ICANN claims to have as its most fundamental aim
the stability of the Internet.  A forcible re-delegation of 50+ ccTLDs
would possibly be the very worse possible thing they could do which
conflicts with that aim.

>> and if ICANN tries to force the ccTLDs then they will quite simply set
>> up their own root server and ICANN would have to point to it.  
>
>Never happen.  It would take a LOT more than this to get people to use
>a different root server network.  The ccTLDs cannot enforce a change
>in people's root server usage in their country.  The control does not
>emanate from them.

You mis-understand.  The US Govt would instruct Root Server A to point
to the alternative root server for all ccTLDs or alternatively just
ignore ICANN's attempts to re-delegate against the wishes of local
Govts.

>> Also the US Government would get so battered by every other Govt that
>> they would probably take Root Server A well away from ICANN.  There is
>> not a chance in hell DOC would ever agree to redelegate a ccTLD away
>> from a registry supported by the local Govt.
>
>Very VERY few of the ccTLDs involve the government in any way.  And
>most of the ones that do have involvement support a strong ICANN, such
>as UK, Germany, Argentina, and Australia (to name just a few).

They only support ICANN so long as ICANN does not act against them.
You try to take .uk away from Nominet and give to say RIPE and you'll
see Tony Blair on the phone to his mate George W.

A lot of small ccTLDs do not have much Govt involvement but the ones
who matter do, and make sure they have their Govts on side.  

>The ccTLD registries have an overinflated sense of their importance.
>They think they can operate independent of ICANN?  I say let them try.

As long as they their Govt onside ICANN can do little.  ICANN can act
against a ccTLD Manager if they have the support of the local Govt to
do so (as in .au) but would get crapped on from a large height by the
US Govt if they tried to re-delegate against the wishes of a local
Govt.

I almost wish they did try.  It would be one of the most amusing
things to watch.  

>And have ICANN remove them from the roots and redelegate their
>registries in the ICANN controlled roots to those who will abide the
>contracts, which you can bet will be heavy with control to the
>governments.
>
>Don't equate a few ccTLD registries being disgruntled with ICANN as
>meaning their countries' governments feel the same.

Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.

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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 02:05:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 1:31:09 AM, DPF wrote:

> On the contrary.  I am in no way (like William) a supporter of the alt
> root community.  However if ICANN tried to redelegate dozens of ccTLDs
> against their will and that of their Government there would be a
> dedicated root server for the ccTLDs within weeks.

They don't have the resources, nor the means to get it in use.

> Even without that you would have meltdown.  ICANN for example could
> try and take .uk away from Nominet but with hundreds of ISPs in the UK
> all using Nominet they would beyond doubt all continue to recognise
> Nominet.

Not if there was a new delegate.  The ISPs would use the one in the
root that has the most exposure, and that would still be ICANN.

> Not at all.  The NZ Government has specifically recognised for example
> InternetNZ as the .nz manager.  NZ Govt is also a very active
> participant in GAC but not because it wants to control the .nz ccTLD.

> Many Govts are in GAC to stop the US Government being the only
> Government of influence.  Others are there to protect their interests
> or to stop mission creep in GAC.

Have you read the GAC stuff that is available?  It is just the
opposite.

>>The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.

> Of course they have.  But only up until the point they work with the
> Govt.  What you propose William is ICANN taking away the ccTLD
> registry from the current operator and giving to an overseas body, all
> with no consultation with the Government.

I never said that. I suspect ICANN would work closely with those
governments to find new delegates.  And explain to those governments
how the new contracts give the governments much more control and
authority than they have now, etc.

> Now let me tell you if that was to be attempted all wrath would break
> free as ccTLD managers tell their Government the registry for their
> country code is moving overseas due to the US Govt and a US based
> corporation.

You assume the ccTLD managers have that kind of influence.  In
practice, that is EXTREMELY rare. Maybe one or two cases, but those
cases are more likely to just sign the contract, since they already
have close government ties.

> There would be angry phonecalls to the US Government and not to minor
> bureaucrats in DOC but from Heads of Governments to the US Secretary
> of State.  The wrath would be so great that ICANN would be left
> without even permission to tie its own shoelaces.

You really think the ccTLD operators have such influence?

I don't see that at all. I think there are only a few ccTLDs who would
even be outraged enough to try.

> Now if you think what I say isn't true, then why do you think ICANN
> haven't moved against the ccTLDs as you suggest?

Because they have their attention focused elsewhere, on an area that
they are under MUCH more scrutiny about, and one which will make or
break them, the gTLD issue.

But don't think that will last forever.

> The ccTLDs are possibly the only thing standing in the way of ICANN
> becoming what ICANNWATCH fears -a global law making policy with no
> restraints.  So I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the ccTLDs and
> cheerlead for ICANN to move against them.

I strongly disagree with the illustrious Mr Froomkin and his
evaluation.  His tendency to exaggerate and blow things out of
proportion.....

> Also as a final point ICANN claims to have as its most fundamental aim
> the stability of the Internet.  A forcible re-delegation of 50+ ccTLDs
> would possibly be the very worse possible thing they could do which
> conflicts with that aim.

That's just it, David.  I seriously doubt it would end up that way.
Most of the ccTLDs don't have the backbone, nor a reasonable belief
that their governments would them in a battle with ICANN (esp. one
that ICANN can easily sell as giving more benefit and control to those
governments), to stick their necks out like that.

ICANN might have to make an example out of one.

And I think the .au redelegation may be setting just the kind of
precedent they want, a ccTLD being redelegated to give greater
government control, over the objections of the existing delegate, and
with a brand spanking new contract with ICANN.

You think they aren't setting a precedent for future action there?

> You mis-understand.  The US Govt would instruct Root Server A to point
> to the alternative root server for all ccTLDs or alternatively just
> ignore ICANN's attempts to re-delegate against the wishes of local
> Govts.

Again, this would never happen. This presupposes that governments
would oppose ICANN.  That is not the case.  The entire premise is that
ICANN would be acting in the best interests of those governments,
giving them what they have already said through the GAC that they
want, almost complete local control over the ccTLD.  The ccTLDs are
the ones fighting that kind of policy from ICANN.

> They only support ICANN so long as ICANN does not act against them.
> You try to take .uk away from Nominet and give to say RIPE and you'll
> see Tony Blair on the phone to his mate George W.

UK would sign the contract.   They already have a strong relationship
with the UK Government.  There is no reason for them not to sign the
contract.

> A lot of small ccTLDs do not have much Govt involvement but the ones
> who matter do, and make sure they have their Govts on side.  

No, not really, and like I said, the ones who do are the ones less
likely to find an issue with it.

> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.

You assume the ccTLDs would be unified, and that their governments
would oppose ICANN on their behalf.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 21:28:39 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 02:05:27 -0700, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 1:31:09 AM, DPF wrote:
>

>> They only support ICANN so long as ICANN does not act against them.
>> You try to take .uk away from Nominet and give to say RIPE and you'll
>> see Tony Blair on the phone to his mate George W.
>
>UK would sign the contract.   They already have a strong relationship
>with the UK Government.  There is no reason for them not to sign the
>contract.

Actually .uk's position seems pretty close to not recognising ICANN's
authority at all.  Their position IIRC is they have a contract with
the estate of Jon Postel which ICANN can not terminate (DR Black
correct me if mis-stating).

.uk would be one of the last not the first to sign a contract.
Remember ICANN are not just wanting ccTLDs to accept re-delegations
rights but also to give unlimited policy authority to ICANN.   ICANN
could then start exempting words from registrations, impose the UDRP,
levying a tax per name, imposing structural requirements for 2nd and
3rd level names etc etc.

>> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
>> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.
>
>You assume the ccTLDs would be unified, and that their governments
>would oppose ICANN on their behalf.

I assume the major ccTLDs would be unified and their Governments would
back then if ICANN did what you suggested.  I can not speak for the NZ
Government (well not anymore :-) but on the knowledge I do have of our
local scene I would say it is a near certainty for us.

And the ccTLDs have done an amazing job of keeping unity over the last
couple of years.  

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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 02:42:00 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 2:28:39 AM, DPF wrote:

> Actually .uk's position seems pretty close to not recognising ICANN's
> authority at all.  Their position IIRC is they have a contract with
> the estate of Jon Postel which ICANN can not terminate (DR Black
> correct me if mis-stating).

Jon Postel didn't own the namespace.  The argument wouldn't hold up
even if they did try and claim it.

> .uk would be one of the last not the first to sign a contract.
> Remember ICANN are not just wanting ccTLDs to accept re-delegations
> rights but also to give unlimited policy authority to ICANN.

I've seen no such thing.  I think the new .au contract will closely
resemble what they are asking for.

> ICANN
> could then start exempting words from registrations, impose the UDRP,
> levying a tax per name, imposing structural requirements for 2nd and
> 3rd level names etc etc.

Again, none of those things have been proposed.  However, the
registries do play a key role in the funding of ICANN, and it is from
ICANN that their delegation flows.  So I think it makes perfect sense
for their to be a per domain fee as a means of supporting ICANN, and I
think that should be negotiated as a part of the contracts.

>>> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
>>> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.
>>
>>You assume the ccTLDs would be unified, and that their governments
>>would oppose ICANN on their behalf.

> I assume the major ccTLDs would be unified and their Governments would
> back then if ICANN did what you suggested.  I can not speak for the NZ
> Government (well not anymore :-) but on the knowledge I do have of our
> local scene I would say it is a near certainty for us.

> And the ccTLDs have done an amazing job of keeping unity over the last
> couple of years.  

I disagree.  The only thing I've seen them unify behind is this
attempt to try and gain control of the board.

Honestly, I think they see the writing on the wall, that ICANN will
start cutting deals with their governments and practically forcing
them to sign new contracts.  I think this whole move may be nothing
more than an attempt by them to try and stop and/or slow that process
down.

I don't believe the ccTLDs are as unified as you think, or that their
governments are that willing to go to bat for them over ICANN.  I
think ICANN will make a much more attractive ally for them.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 14:16:12 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear DPF,
contracts are no better. Complex, delaying, blocking innovation. Who said 
that Staff meant "single team authoritative for failures".

The only solution is no ICANN creep. ICP-1 extended to every TLD. A single 
a minima rule of the game for everyone. So every one is in the same field 
and can build on top and every ccTLD be protected: ICANN wants to be able 
to change the contract terms? so will want the Gov: how do you want the 
ccTLD to build in stability. General rules cannot renegotiated...  so it is 
to each country and TLD Manager to adapt. ICP-1 should only be reviewed by 
the DNSO: NSI and every TLD manager cc/s/open alike.

BTW, Danny, I strongly object that the DNSO would disapear: a) it would be 
a DN disarray and an USG takeover, who wants that? b) to the countrary the 
SOs must take over the Staff (I must acknowledge that I did not understand 
the position of Karl Auerbach on this: he is right).

The question is only: will we agree with Staff on its withrawall and 
authority transfer to the SOs or will we have to fight our own Staff to get 
the ICANN back in its shoes?

We have to prepare both.
Jefsey

On 07:10 08/09/01, DPF said:
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:57:30 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >William,
> >
> >>
> >>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
> >>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
> >>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
> >>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
> >>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
> >>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
> >
> >That attitude from ICANN would show that they are really against arrogance.
>
>Actually to some degree the above is what ICANN tried at first.  They
>tried unilateral contracts and bills for services.  The ccTLDs said
>naff off and ICANN realised that in a fight between ICANN and several
>dozen ccTLDs backed by their sovereign governments ICANN would not
>even come a close second but would lose so badly it would probably
>never be given policy control of Root Server A.
>
>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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 14:59:04 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear DPF,
why not to propose the ICANN to replace Andy McLauglin with WXW. Andy sees 
nationalisms everywhere, at least he would meet one.
It would speed up the governance cleaning. St. Lynn preached a single root? 
this is the result: ISO 3166 as everybody knows is hierarchical and is 
rooted in US authoritative government.
Jefsey

On 11:42 08/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 2:28:39 AM, DPF wrote:
>
> > Actually .uk's position seems pretty close to not recognising ICANN's
> > authority at all.  Their position IIRC is they have a contract with
> > the estate of Jon Postel which ICANN can not terminate (DR Black
> > correct me if mis-stating).
>
>Jon Postel didn't own the namespace.  The argument wouldn't hold up
>even if they did try and claim it.
>
> > .uk would be one of the last not the first to sign a contract.
> > Remember ICANN are not just wanting ccTLDs to accept re-delegations
> > rights but also to give unlimited policy authority to ICANN.
>
>I've seen no such thing.  I think the new .au contract will closely
>resemble what they are asking for.
>
> > ICANN
> > could then start exempting words from registrations, impose the UDRP,
> > levying a tax per name, imposing structural requirements for 2nd and
> > 3rd level names etc etc.
>
>Again, none of those things have been proposed.  However, the
>registries do play a key role in the funding of ICANN, and it is from
>ICANN that their delegation flows.  So I think it makes perfect sense
>for their to be a per domain fee as a means of supporting ICANN, and I
>think that should be negotiated as a part of the contracts.
>
> >>> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
> >>> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.
> >>
> >>You assume the ccTLDs would be unified, and that their governments
> >>would oppose ICANN on their behalf.
>
> > I assume the major ccTLDs would be unified and their Governments would
> > back then if ICANN did what you suggested.  I can not speak for the NZ
> > Government (well not anymore :-) but on the knowledge I do have of our
> > local scene I would say it is a near certainty for us.
>
> > And the ccTLDs have done an amazing job of keeping unity over the last
> > couple of years.
>
>I disagree.  The only thing I've seen them unify behind is this
>attempt to try and gain control of the board.
>
>Honestly, I think they see the writing on the wall, that ICANN will
>start cutting deals with their governments and practically forcing
>them to sign new contracts.  I think this whole move may be nothing
>more than an attempt by them to try and stop and/or slow that process
>down.
>
>I don't believe the ccTLDs are as unified as you think, or that their
>governments are that willing to go to bat for them over ICANN.  I
>think ICANN will make a much more attractive ally for them.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Userfriendly.com Domains
>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>--
>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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:14:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear David,

Your statements here are so very true. One could hope that the americans soon
will realise this.

Regards
Per Koelle
.DK

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:44:19 -0700, William X Walsh
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 4:27:30 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs
> >> 6,5, 4 or less?
> >
> >How arrogant to suggest that the ccTLDs should have anywhere NEAR so
> >many board seats allocated to them.
> >
> >That is just plain ludicrous, even if they were deserving of an SO
> >status, which the most certainly are not.
> >
> >The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
> >on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
> >contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
> >and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
> >freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
> >or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
>
> William - get real.  ICANN if it tried to do that would split the root
> within weeks.  Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)
> and if ICANN tries to force the ccTLDs then they will quite simply set
> up their own root server and ICANN would have to point to it.
>
> Also the US Government would get so battered by every other Govt that
> they would probably take Root Server A well away from ICANN.  There is
> not a chance in hell DOC would ever agree to redelegate a ccTLD away
> from a registry supported by the local Govt.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

Med venlig hilsen

Per Kølle
Adm. direktør
DK Hostmaster A/S
e-mail: [email-masked]
tlf: +45 77 30 06 70
fax: +45 77 30 06 79

- --
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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 08:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 1:31:09 AM, DPF wrote:
>
> > On the contrary.  I am in no way (like William) a supporter of the alt
> > root community.  However if ICANN tried to redelegate dozens of ccTLDs
> > against their will and that of their Government there would be a
> > dedicated root server for the ccTLDs within weeks.
>
> They don't have the resources, nor the means to get it in use.

Oh I imagine that wouldn't be very difficult to arrange.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 13:48:12 -0300
From: Carsten Schiefner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] OT: Small blue bag missed!

Colleagues (to those currently attending the ICANN meetings in
Montevideo),

sorry for being completely off-topic here, but it might help my wish to
get back a small blue bag I obviously left yesterday evening in the
Terminal area in the conference venue. Besides some electronic gadgets
it also contains personal belongings I would be sad if eventually not
getting them back. So if anybody has seen or even taken this bag with
him or her I really would appreciate if this person could contact the
Radisson reception, ICANN staff (Diane Schroeder in person) or local
staff - I definitely will offer some beers in the hotel bar!

Best regards,

	Carsten
- --
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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:13:06 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 08:31:09PM +1200, DPF wrote:
> >Never happen.
> 
> On the contrary.  I am in no way (like William) a supporter of the alt
> root community.  However if ICANN tried to redelegate dozens of ccTLDs
> against their will and that of their Government there would be a
> dedicated root server for the ccTLDs within weeks.

I'm sorry, but this is a simpleminded and nonsensical argument, and the
fact that the ccTLDs ever made it was a terrible exposure of how weak
their position actually is. 

The "dedicated" root server you describe would be essentially useless. 
TLDs don't "use" the root server -- it is USERS who use the root server. 
There is simply no way to get information about any new "dedicated" root
server out there into all the resolvers on the Internet.  Moreover, the
nameservers for the ccTLDs must of necessity be public, so the
information can be mirrored by the ICANN root easily, and still 
maintain 100% visibility of the ccTLD zones, and its 100% 

> Even without that you would have meltdown.  ICANN for example could
> try and take .uk away from Nominet but with hundreds of ISPs in the UK
> all using Nominet they would beyond doubt all continue to recognise
> Nominet.

ICANN isn't going to try to take .uk away from Nominet.  The fact is
that the ccTLDs, ICANN, and the governments are embroiled in a
tremendously complex dance, and ICANN isn't going to do anything drastic
without substantial support from the GAC.  But if ICANN has support from
the GAC -- that is, if the interested governments come up with a uniform
position, then the ccTLDs will have no choice but to comply.  This is
what some of the ccTLDs fear more than anything else, because right now
they occupy a comfortable, oversight-free gap between ICANN and their
governments.  This is why the ccTLDs want disproportionate
representation on the board -- they fear the collectivity of their own
governments, and they think that they need control through the ICANN 
board.

Currently, from a global perspective there is a large governmental
policy vacuum towards ccTLDs.  But that vacuum is abhored, and it will
be filled.  The GAC offers governments a forum to come up with a uniform
policy toward their ccTLDs, and it is inevitable that its power and 
influence will grow.

> >> Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
> >> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)
> >
> >Most of those Governments simple do not OPPOSE their delegations.
> >What do you think the GAC is all about?  The governments feels they
> >don't have ENOUGH control over their ccTLDs, and what to see ICANN
> >give the more control.
> 
> Not at all.  The NZ Government has specifically recognised for example
> InternetNZ as the .nz manager.  NZ Govt is also a very active
> participant in GAC but not because it wants to control the .nz ccTLD.

Don't be so smug.  The NZ case is one of 242 special cases.  If the GAC 
comes to a uniform policy toward ccTLDs, .nz will go the way of the 
rest of the ccTLDs.

> Many Govts are in GAC to stop the US Government being the only
> Government of influence.  Others are there to protect their interests
> or to stop mission creep in GAC.

And others are there because they consider their ccTLDs to be out of 
control, and they want to control them.  

> >The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.
> 
> Of course they have.  But only up until the point they work with the
> Govt.  What you propose William is ICANN taking away the ccTLD
> registry from the current operator and giving to an overseas body, all
> with no consultation with the Government.

Sorry, that is an absurd strawman.

[...]

> The ccTLDs are possibly the only thing standing in the way of ICANN
> becoming what ICANNWATCH fears -a global law making policy with no
> restraints.

That is utter nonsense.

[...]

> They only support ICANN so long as ICANN does not act against them.
> You try to take .uk away from Nominet and give to say RIPE and you'll
> see Tony Blair on the phone to his mate George W.
> 
> A lot of small ccTLDs do not have much Govt involvement but the ones
> who matter do, and make sure they have their Govts on side.

Then why do ccTLDs so desparately want direct positions on the board? If
things were as you describe, then there would be no need for that. 

> >The ccTLD registries have an overinflated sense of their importance.
> >They think they can operate independent of ICANN?  I say let them try.
> 
> As long as they their Govt onside ICANN can do little.

Big if.  That is precisely the problem that ccTLDs face.

>  ICANN can act
> against a ccTLD Manager if they have the support of the local Govt to
> do so (as in .au) but would get crapped on from a large height by the
> US Govt if they tried to re-delegate against the wishes of a local
> Govt.
> 
> I almost wish they did try.  It would be one of the most amusing
> things to watch.  

More with the ridiculous strawmen.  The reason that ccTLDs want
positions on the board is because they don't want to be under the
control of their governments.  They want to control ICANN so they can
use ICANN as a lever against their own governments. 

[...]

> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.

...as long as, indeed.  That is precisely the issue.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 13:56:05 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Is there some kind of problem with the remote discussion list?  I cannot login.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 18:45:45 +0200
From: Dany Vandromme <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] Announcement: Invitation to remote participation   inNon-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency in Montevideo

Ermanno Pietrosemoli wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> I followed the instructions on the discussion list site and got the
> following:
> -----
> Discuss Subscription results
> Confirmation from your email address is required, to prevent anyone from
> subscribing you without permission. Instructions are being sent to you at
> [email-masked]. Please note your subscription will not start until you
> confirm your subscription.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Discuss list run by [email-masked]
> Discuss administrative interface (requires authorization)
>    Mailman home page
> Python home page
> GNU home page
> 
> ------------------------------
> 10 hours later, I still have not received any message. I wanted to delegate
> the responsibility of representing Eslared at ICANN Montevideo meeting on
> Mr. Edmundo Vitale, General Manager of Eslared. I hope this will suffice.
> Pls write to me for any further action..
> I apologize for sending a general message, but time is pressing.
> 
> Ermanno Pietrosemoli
> Presidente
> Fundacion Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes
> (Latin American Networking School)    www.eslared.org
> Apartado Postal 514. Merida 5101-A.Venezuela
- -
I suppose that the delay in answer is due to the participation of the
list manager to the Montevideo meeting.
This matter is not related to the remote participation facility which is
open to anyone (www.vrvs.org)
DV
- -- 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: [email-masked] |  FRANCE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 14:46:13 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

i passed your concerns on the the tech people and they are checking it
out

ken stubbs

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
> Is there some kind of problem with the remote discussion list?  I cannot login.
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> --
> 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 #728
************************