Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #729
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 9 2001          Volume 01 : Number 729

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

Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 19:55:41 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

*** start ***
> 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.

*** end ***

Only someone who has no real knowledge of UK internet usage would make such
a crass statement.  .uk is not a novelty namespace in the UK, it is widely
adopted and actively used in preference to gtld's for many companies
including banks etc.

To say that if .uk was redelegated the UK ISP's would ignore Nominet is mind
numbingly stupid.  The user outrage at not being able to access their online
bank accounts etc would indeed lead to ISP's ensuring their service resolved
Nominets .uk namespace - to do otherwise would be commercial suicide for the
ISP.

Regards

Paul Cotton

- --
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: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 07:01:14 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The ccTLD's

Peter de Blanc 2minutes ago:

"On a voluntary basis we will continue the support of ICANN"

and  "we will continue our contacts will all constituencies *and 
stakeholders*".

- --Joop

- --
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 21:52:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, at 19:55 [=GMT+0100], Paul Cotton wrote:

> To say that if .uk was redelegated the UK ISP's would ignore Nominet is mind
> numbingly stupid.  The user outrage at not being able to access their online
> bank accounts etc would indeed lead to ISP's ensuring their service resolved
> Nominets .uk namespace - to do otherwise would be commercial suicide for the
> ISP.

The same would be true for .NL, and, I guess, many ccTLDs. They have
therefore a very powerful position within the ICANN 'bottom up
consensus' process. They have noticed that themselves recently. Some
of the managers of ccTLDs have. They are trying hard. Not sure what
they are aiming at, except more influence for themselves, personaly so
to speak.

- --
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 13:24:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 11:55:41 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> Only someone who has no real knowledge of UK internet usage would make such
> a crass statement.  .uk is not a novelty namespace in the UK, it is widely
> adopted and actively used in preference to gtld's for many companies
> including banks etc.

> To say that if .uk was redelegated the UK ISP's would ignore Nominet is mind
> numbingly stupid.  The user outrage at not being able to access their online
> bank accounts etc would indeed lead to ISP's ensuring their service resolved
> Nominets .uk namespace - to do otherwise would be commercial suicide for the
> ISP.

This presumes that in a redelegation registrants lose their domain
name.

That is not the case, it never has been.

The .au name holders are not in danger of losing their registrations
simple because the domain has been forcefully redelegated, just as one
example.

Everyone would still resolve their names, the suggestion that they
would somehow not be able to access things like their bank account is
nothing but informed argument, or at worst and attempt to use alarmist
rhetoric to prevent people from seeing that it really is this simple.

- -- 
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, 8 Sep 2001 21:38:42 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Hi William,

So in essence you think the UK government would support an ICANN move to
force acceptance of their terms on the .uk operator and if Nominet won't
accept ICANN's terms to forcefully redelegate and have Nominet hand over its
nameserver and whois databases?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>

This presumes that in a redelegation registrants lose their domain
name.

That is not the case, it never has been.

The .au name holders are not in danger of losing their registrations
simple because the domain has been forcefully redelegated, just as one
example.

Everyone would still resolve their names, the suggestion that they
would somehow not be able to access things like their bank account is
nothing but informed argument, or at worst and attempt to use alarmist
rhetoric to prevent people from seeing that it really is this simple.
- --- end ---

- --
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 13:47:15 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 07:55:41PM +0100, Paul Cotton wrote:
> *** start ***
> > 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.
> 
> *** end ***
> 
> Only someone who has no real knowledge of UK internet usage would make such
> a crass statement.  .uk is not a novelty namespace in the UK, it is widely
> adopted and actively used in preference to gtld's for many companies
> including banks etc.
> 
> To say that if .uk was redelegated the UK ISP's would ignore Nominet is mind
> numbingly stupid.

Almost as mind-numbingly stupid as claiming that Nominet could use some
alternate root service.  Both claims are irresponsible, unrealistic
bluster.  

But the first rumblings about alternate root zones for the ccTLDs were
not over any threat by ICANN of redelegation -- they were simply because
the ccTLDs weren't getting the contract terms they wanted.  For the
ccTLDs to proceed with such a plan, over basically nothing, would have
been suicide -- the governments would indeed take over, then, because
the ccTLDs in question would have demonstrated beyond doubt that they
couldn't be trusted to run critical infrastructure -- and the DNS *is*
critical infrastructure...  in my opinion that's why the cooler, more
knowledgable heads in the ccTLD camp soft-pedaled on the alternate root
claims. 

> The user outrage at not being able to access their online
> bank accounts etc would indeed lead to ISP's ensuring their service resolved
> Nominets .uk namespace - to do otherwise would be commercial suicide for the
> ISP.

Perhaps.  But 1) ISPs don't handle all name resolutions, and thus, they
can't really solve the problem; and 2) ISPs in the rest of the world
would not be under such a constraint.  The banks etc would have to
decide whether they wanted their names to resolve outside the UK, in the
root zone that 99% of the rest of the world uses.  If so, they would
quickly register in the new registry.  Otherwise, they might not.  The
ICANN root zone offers some thing that no ccTLD root zone could offer --
current and continuing worldwide visibility. 

Of course, ICANN isn't going to delist Nominet.  Nominet could 
completely disregard the welfare of its customers,  but ICANN won't. 

- -- 
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 16:51:42 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] article

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=internetnews&StoryID=206015

Rocky Start to Debate Over Public Role in Internet
Last Updated: September 07, 2001 07:21 PM ET

By Andy Sullivan

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay (Reuters) - An African activist who suggested that
proposed reforms to the Internet's top standards-setting body would not
increase public participation as much as hoped drew an angry response from an
official on Friday.

"There are limits to the amount of rubbish I can take," reform committee chair
Carl Bildt told South African activist Alan Levin as the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) began a quarterly meeting here.

The nonprofit group charged with maintaining the Internet's address system
hopes to find ways to get the planet's 500 million Internet users more
involved in decisions like creating new domains to provide alternatives to
".com."

The angry exchange between Bildt and Levin illustrated the heated emotions
surrounding the debate, which in many ways questions the very nature of ICANN
itself.

Part technical body, part United Nations, ICANN has faced charges since it was
founded in 1998 that it makes decisions in an arbitrary, secretive and
undemocratic fashion. But at least the critics are paying attention.
Participants here conceded that the issue of public involvement has failed to
capture the public's attention.

ICANN had set up a conference-call line so those not in Montevideo could
participate, but an operator reported that no one had dialed in.

While ICANN's mission is primarily technical, many of its decisions do have a
profound impact on how Internet users navigate online.

The organization contains policy-making committees of Internet businesses,
engineers and other groups, but until recently, the general public has not had
a role.

ICANN held open, Internet-based elections last fall to determine five of its
19 board seats, but the process was marred by low turnout, logistical
headaches and allegations of ballot-stuffing.

The nonprofit appointed a committee in March to examine how future elections
should be conducted, who should be allowed to vote, and what role they should
have within the organization.

In a report released last week, the committee recommended giving six board
seats to "at large" users, with one each coming from North America, Latin
America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and India and the Asian Pacific
region.

Voters would be required to hold not just an e-mail address, such as
[email-masked], but a domain name, such as www.johndoe.com, and would
be charged an undetermined membership fee to fund the process.

At-large users would also be encouraged to participate in a policymaking
committee of their own.

Committee members emphasized Friday that the report was a practical
compromise, not a perfect solution, in the face of logistical hurdles and
widespread public indifference.

"We are not necessarily saying this going to be the solution for the next 500
years," said committee chairman Carl Bildt.

LEGISLATING THE 'DIGITAL DIVIDE'?

Activists said the domain-name and fee requirements would freeze out too many
Internet users, especially those from developing countries.

Several complained that business interests, which control 80 percent of all
".com," ".org" and ".net" domain names, could potentially dominate a forum
intended for individual users.

Alan Levin, a South African activist who ran unsuccessfully for a board seat
last year, pointed out that of the roughly 40 million registered domain names,
only one-fifth of one percent were held in Africa, and the vast majority of
those were held in just one country -- South Africa.

"It smacks of potentially legislating the digital divide," Levin said.

Bildt took offense at the charge. "There are limits to the amount of rubbish I
can take," he said. "Close to half the world has never made a telephone call.
I would not tear down the telephone system of the U.S. because of that."

After the meeting, Levin and Izumi Aizu of the Asia Network Research described
Bildt's attitude as "paternalistic" and said they were not sure if his
committee would take their concerns into account.

"I would be more comfortable if he took a different attitude," Aizu said.

Levin and Aizu, along with several others at the meeting, had developed a
competing plan that recommends allowing anyone interested to vote for nine of
ICANN's 19 board seats without charge.

Their report, due to be presented for discussion on Saturday, also recommends
placing limits on the power of the board and setting up a bill of rights for
individual users.

The group would also welcome more interest in its activities.

At ICANN meetings around the globe, Bildt said, "we're seeing the same people
from the same countries turning up at different places. That's not quite
global involvement. That's global presence, perhaps."

Sincerely,

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, 8 Sep 2001 17:05:33 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

William, are you assuming that if the ccTLD were re-delegated in 
all countries, that the registry would turn over the database?  They 
are not all under contract and have obligation to do so.  The new 
delegation would have to recreate the database and provide new 
TLd servers.  I would say that it would not be a simple transition in 
many cases.

On 8 Sep 2001, at 13:24, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 11:55:41 AM, Paul Cotton
> wrote: > Only someone who has no real knowledge of UK internet usage
> would make such > a crass statement.  .uk is not a novelty namespace
> in the UK, it is widely > adopted and actively used in preference to
> gtld's for many companies > including banks etc.
> 
> > To say that if .uk was redelegated the UK ISP's would ignore Nominet
> > is mind numbingly stupid.  The user outrage at not being able to
> > access their online bank accounts etc would indeed lead to ISP's
> > ensuring their service resolved Nominets .uk namespace - to do
> > otherwise would be commercial suicide for the ISP.
> 
> This presumes that in a redelegation registrants lose their domain
> name.
> 
> That is not the case, it never has been.
> 
> The .au name holders are not in danger of losing their registrations
> simple because the domain has been forcefully redelegated, just as one
> example.
> 
> Everyone would still resolve their names, the suggestion that they
> would somehow not be able to access things like their bank account is
> nothing but informed argument, or at worst and attempt to use alarmist
> rhetoric to prevent people from seeing that it really is this simple.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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-full" 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 23:10:28 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On 19:13 08/09/01, Kent Crispin said:
>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

avec de tels si on met Paris dans un micro bouteille de coke !

- --
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 14:45:39 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 2:05:33 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> William, are you assuming that if the ccTLD were re-delegated in 
> all countries, that the registry would turn over the database?  They 
> are not all under contract and have obligation to do so.  The new 
> delegation would have to recreate the database and provide new 
> TLd servers.  I would say that it would not be a simple transition in 
> many cases.

I think it would.  I think that if the ccTLD didn't have the support
of their government, that they would not have much choice but to do
so.

You will recall that I supported mandatory data escrow as a part of
all registry contracts, and that the registries specifically agree
that if they are unable or unwilling to continue operating the
registry, that they agree to sign over any and all intellectual
property related to the registry, including all databases, to ICANN
for reassignment to a new registry operator.

In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.

- -- 
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, 8 Sep 2001 18:52:08 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Montevideo DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 6:48 PM
To: ICANN-Montevideo Remote Participants and Remote Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Montevideo DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum
Tomorrow

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
public meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay (September 7-10) via webcast.

Today's meetings of the DNSO General Assembly and Names Council are now
complete, and archives of these sessions have been posted in the online
meeting archive at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive>.
Archives include complete RealVideo recordings, agendas, scribe's notes,
documents and presentations used, real-time questions received, and online
discussion logs.

Meetings resume tomorrow at 8:30AM local time with the ICANN Public Forum.
To join the webcast, go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo>.
During and just before webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow
you to enter the remote participation area.  Please be sure to join us
online at the proper time, being aware of time zone differences.  Links at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo> can help you convert
Montevideo time to local time in your area.

In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
as posted at <http://www.icann.org/montevideo/#agenda>.  From that page,
you'll also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.

If you miss some or all of the Public Forum or if you wish to review content
generated by the Public Forum, be advised that complete archives of the
session will be posted at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive> upon its conclusion.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
later strongly recommended), available for free from
<http://www.real.com/products/player>, or the Windows Media Player,
available for free from <http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmedia>.  Access to
the real-time discussion and dynamically-updated scribe's notes areas
requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE or Netscape version 3 or later) or a
dedicated IRC client.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
instructions.

We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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 23:07:16 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>

Almost as mind-numbingly stupid as claiming that Nominet could use some
alternate root service.  Both claims are irresponsible, unrealistic
bluster.
- --- end ---

The scenario related to Nominet being forced into the position by ICANN.
Obviously it would be emminently preferable for Nominet to remain a part of
the ICANN root for .uk - but given the dominant domestic nature of .uk if
the hand were forced, UK ISP's could use an alternative root server that did
resolve Nominets .uk's outside of ICANN's root.  Nobody in their right mind
would WANT this to happen, but if circumstances dictated then it could be
done.  I have no doubt the UK government would side with Nominet over
ICANN's wishes and the ISP's would ensure they could offer all the .uk sites
that their customers wanted.

- --- start ---
Perhaps.  But 1) ISPs don't handle all name resolutions, and thus, they
can't really solve the problem; and 2) ISPs in the rest of the world
would not be under such a constraint.  The banks etc would have to
decide whether they wanted their names to resolve outside the UK, in the
root zone that 99% of the rest of the world uses.  If so, they would
quickly register in the new registry.  Otherwise, they might not.  The
ICANN root zone offers some thing that no ccTLD root zone could offer --
current and continuing worldwide visibility.
- --- end ---

This ignores that .uk is more important to the domestic market rather than
to the worldwide arena.  The banks etc would want to look after their
customers, and their customers would want to be able to resolve the entire
existing .uk namespace as that is where a significant proportion of the
sites they already use would reside.  It would not be necessary for the
domain registrants to register in the new registry, as the close to 3
million existing nominet .uk registrations are reason enough for ISP's to
make sure they can offer that resolution.

Never underestimate the power of patriotism even in the face of logic,
especially in the UK.

I understand this is all hyperthetical argument and it simply won't happen
regardless.

Regards

Paul Cotton

- --
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: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:21:01 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)

May be that I missed it: But why could they not at leat _thank_ Robert
Elz for his work? Sarcasm VERY MUCH intended.

If you check the ICANN web site (and the IANA report) you will find  that
KRE is explicitly thaked for his work re .au.

erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA
(.au)

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, at 12:21 [=GMT-0700], William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Wednesday, Wednesday, September 05, 2001, 4:03:34 AM, Alexander Svensson
wrote:
> >
> > >  Entry of this agreement will benefit the Australian Internet
> > >  community by providing for a more formally accountable structure
> > >  for management of the .au ccTLD in the interest of that community.
> > >  The global Internet community will receive, through ICANN, auDA's
> > >  assurances that the .au ccTLD will be operated in a stable and
> > >  interoperable manner. The entry of this agreement will be another
> > >  step in the gradual transition of the Internet's technical
> > >  coordination to private-sector management through ICANN's auspices.
> >
> > I trust Robert Elz much more than I would trust the Australian
> > Government to look out for the interests of the Australian internet
> > community.  This is the government that has passed some of the most
> > onerous laws regarding the internet even when compared to the policies
> > of traditionally oppressive governments.
>
> May be that I missed it: But why could they not at leat _thank_ Robert
> Elz for his work? Sarcasm VERY MUCH intended.
>
>
> --
> [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: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 01:37:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On 23:45 08/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.

ICANN decided otherwise. .biz registry from ARNI should have been included 
in the NeuLevel registry. The current practice of the ICANN is in violation 
of RFC 920/1591.
Jefsey

- --
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: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 00:56:59 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Hi Jefsey,

Shall I add .gb to the list of .uk wannabes? :)

.uk.com
.uk.net
.uk.co (my favourite fake uk domain)
.gbr.hm
.gbr.cc
.eng.fm
.gbr.fm

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear Paul,
what about the ICANN accepting ".gb" :-) ?
We used "GBR" on the international naming plan. ".uk" is a "mistake" (Kings
College?).
Jefsey

- --
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: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:55:44 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:13:06 -0700, Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 08:31:09PM +1200, DPF wrote:
>> >Never happen.
>> 
>> 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.  

Well according to WIlliam they should do exactly that if the ccTLDs
don't all roll over and play dead within 90 days.  That is what I am
disputing.

>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.  

Yep but not just from GAC as a body but if it is sure of support from
the major governments individually.

>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.  

But GAC is showing no signs of trying to force ccTLDs to sign
contracts forcing them to fund ICANN with unlimited money and next to
no representation.

>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.  

Some ccTLDs have oversight from their local internet community.  If
people don't like what is happening they sack people at the AGM -
which is exactly what happened in NZ last year.  Much better oversight
than ICANN could do.

>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.

One could argue that representing 242 out of the 257 TLDs even six
Board Members would be under-represented.  I don't actually support
this and think three would be sensible.

I don't think the ccTLDs was control of the ICANN Board - they just
want a decent level of representation.

>> 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.

You assume GAC could come to a uniform policy.  Have you seen how long
treaties take to negotiate sometimes?

>> 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.  

Yep and I have sympathy for those governments.  In fact I have helped
advise one Government on how best to reclaim its ccTLD.

>> >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.

Read what William proposed.  

>> 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. 

Because many ccTLDs are not selfish and want ICANN to succeed and
would rather be part of ICANN than fighting it.  They want to specify
and limit the authority of ICANN but they do want it to succeed.

>>  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. 

Most ccTLDs recognise that if their Governments want a redelegation
the Government will win out eventually.  They would like there to be
some sort of due process so it can not be done at whim.  

>> 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.

I have never argued otherwise.  But if ICANN tried to do what William
proposed then most Govts would back their ccTLD.  if ICANN continues
to negotiate with ccTLDs (and it would help if they didn't for the
fifth meeting in a row post vital documents 48 hours before the
meeting despite specific condemnations of this practice each other
time it happens) then a compromise is likely which can server ICANN,
Govts and ccTLDs.

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 20:37:47 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

That's my point.  the ccTLDs would have to be forced to sign 
contracts that would require them to turn over databases to ICANN. 
 Well, take the contract out of the picture since it does not exist 
and while the registries may have data escrowed (and they should, 
of course) they are under no oblgation to turn it over to ICANN.  
They can turn it over to anyone they choose, which is the way it 
should be.  As long as the registry is being operated so that the 
domains resolve via their TLD servers, it is up to ICANN to not 
disenfranchise them by pointing to the correct servers for the TLD 
in question.

ICANN is not a government and should not have the power to 
simply dictate to a ccTLD from another country, and subject to that 
country's culture and laws, that the registry should take the 
database and place it in the hands of a foreign body that is NOT 
subject to their laws and culture.  It does not matter if the ccTLD 
manager is the government itself or a national of that country.  
Further, if the ccTLD manager contracts with a foreign company to 
operate it's registry, that registry should still belong to that TLD 
manager in the country of origination.

I never said a registry should just disappear.  What I said is that it 
should not necessarily be arbitrarily re-delegated to someone else 
by ICANN or anyone else.  I hope you won't say that it is not being 
done arbitrarily because that is exactly what has happened in AU.

Now to get back to the original subject, the ccTLDs do have the 
leverage to insist that they will not simply kow tow to ICANN 
demands that they remain in the DNSO and they are forming their 
own organization.

I think it would extremely interesting to see what will happen if 
ICANN strong arms them when they have formed an association 
and agree among themselves to abide by their own guidelines for 
best practices.  They do have options and it would not be difficult 
for them to arrange whatever technical assistance they need.  They 
would, I am certain retain their registry databases on whatever 
servers they designate.  ICANN would, indeed, have to find a way 
to replicate it/them on their own designated servers.  It would be a 
fantastic mess and it would not do well for ICANN's apparance of 
legitimacy.

The ccTLDs have indicated they wish to work with ICANN.  Let's 
see if ICANN will work with them.

Leah

On 8 Sep 2001, at 14:45, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 2:05:33 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > William, are you assuming that if the ccTLD were re-delegated in all
> > countries, that the registry would turn over the database?  They are
> > not all under contract and have obligation to do so.  The new
> > delegation would have to recreate the database and provide new TLd
> > servers.  I would say that it would not be a simple transition in
> > many cases.
> 
> I think it would.  I think that if the ccTLD didn't have the support
> of their government, that they would not have much choice but to do
> so.
> 
> You will recall that I supported mandatory data escrow as a part of
> all registry contracts, and that the registries specifically agree
> that if they are unable or unwilling to continue operating the
> registry, that they agree to sign over any and all intellectual
> property related to the registry, including all databases, to ICANN
> for reassignment to a new registry operator.
> 
> In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.
> 
> -- 
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #729
************************