Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #730
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 9 2001          Volume 01 : Number 730

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

Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 20:48:35 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On 9 Sep 2001, at 1:37, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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
> 

The original .BIZ has not ceased to exist, Jefsey.  It has simply 
been duplicated with a collider that will result in dupliate domain 
names.  But you are correct, it is in violation of the RFC's if you 
wish to use informiational RFC's as law.

Leah

> --
> 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, 8 Sep 2001 19:15:40 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

It might be useful to this dialog to review the model agreement and 
the draft ccTLD agreement with AUDA for .au.  Among other things, it 
provides for third party escrow of the database.

- - Mike

http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm

At 20:37 -0400 9/8/01, L Gallegos wrote:
>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

- -- 
- --
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 22:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

It would also be useful if ICANN were to publish some information about
the current status of the escrow for the gTLDs.  Is there any data in
there? How frequently is it updated?  This would seem (potentially) more
critical to Internet stability than most of what ICANN does.

Is this information out there somewhere?

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Mike Roberts wrote:

> It might be useful to this dialog to review the model agreement and 
> the draft ccTLD agreement with AUDA for .au.  Among other things, it 
> provides for third party escrow of the database.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 20:37 -0400 9/8/01, L Gallegos wrote:
> >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
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 very hot and humid 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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:03:07 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On 8 Sep 2001, at 21:43, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Leah and all assembly members,
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 9 Sep 2001, at 1:37, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > The original .BIZ has not ceased to exist, Jefsey.  It has simply
> > been duplicated with a collider that will result in dupliate domain
> > names.  But you are correct, it is in violation of the RFC's if you
> > wish to use informiational RFC's as law.
> 
>   RFC's are not law, nor are they standards.  One would be pressed to
> say that RFC's represent a "Beat Practices" documents either. Yet the
> ICANN BoD and staff have publicly stated that the IETF and the RFC's
> of which they are in part responsible for, are to be followed.  It
> seems obvious than that the ICANN BoD and staff seem ot only wish to
> follow those RFC's in a very selective manner.  We find that practice
> to be both inconsistent, as well as disingenuous.
> 
> >

I guess my point is, Jeff, that if an organization adopts an RFC or 
set of them as policy, then they should follow them. ICANN doesn't 
even follow its own bylaws or MOU.  Even at that, practices over 
the last several years have pretty much made many areas of those 
RFCs obsolete.  They simply change them to suit their desires.    
How many bylaws changes have occurred since July?  Nine?

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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:16:49 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On 8 Sep 2001, at 21:43, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Leah and all assembly members,
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 9 Sep 2001, at 1:37, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > The original .BIZ has not ceased to exist, Jefsey.  It has simply
> > been duplicated with a collider that will result in dupliate domain
> > names.  But you are correct, it is in violation of the RFC's if you
> > wish to use informiational RFC's as law.
> 
>   RFC's are not law, nor are they standards.  One would be pressed to
> say that RFC's represent a "Beat Practices" documents either. Yet the
> ICANN BoD and staff have publicly stated that the IETF and the RFC's
> of which they are in part responsible for, are to be followed.  It
> seems obvious than that the ICANN BoD and staff seem ot only wish to
> follow those RFC's in a very selective manner.  We find that practice
> to be both inconsistent, as well as disingenuous.
> 
> >

I guess my point is, Jeff, that if an organization adopts an RFC or 
set of them as policy, then they should follow them. ICANN doesn't 
even follow its own bylaws or MOU.  Even at that, practices over 
the last several years have pretty much made many areas of those 
RFCs obsolete.  They simply change them to suit their desires.    
How many bylaws changes have occurred since July?  Nine?

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: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:48:42 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:07:16PM +0100, Paul Cotton wrote:
> ----- 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.

While Mr Walsh has suggested such an action, no one from ICANN has
*ever* made even a remote suggestion of doing anything like that.  All
the threats of going to alternate roots have come from particular 
persons involved with particular ccTLDs who are upset because they 
don't like someone at ICANN, or because they don't like the proposals 
ICANN has made.

> 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.

I can *easily* imagine circumstances where the UK government would not
side with Nominet.  Bear in mind that the new registry would also be
British -- perhaps a very large British ISP...  

I have talked with government officials who are very unhappy with
"their" ccTLD registry, and who are actively seeking ways to get control
of it.  There are other cases where the registry and the government are
happy with each other. 

> --- 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.

No, I didn't ignore that.  I'm moderately familiar with Nominet's
situation, I think. 

>  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.

You missed my point, I think.  The banks would be registered in *both* 
versions of .uk, so that they would get maximum coverage.  The new 
registry could offer free registrations to those who could demonstrate 
a registration in nominet (easy to do, since the information is 
public).  Pretty soon the overlap would be very high, and there would 
be little incentive to keep Nominet over the new *British* registry.  
Might take many years, but I think that worldwide access will become 
more important over time.

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

There are scenarios where patriotism might dictate the elimination of
Nominet.  It is an assumption that Nominet continues to do a good job.

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

Reality is so complex :-)

- -- 
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, 8 Sep 2001 23:04:16 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[...]
> >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.

Agreed.

> >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.

Since no such contracts have ever even been contemplated, that isn't
surprising, is it?

[...]
> 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.

But ICANN really is not concerned with local oversight issues.

> >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.

But they represent only a fraction of total domain name registrations... 
and the number of non-cc TLDs will grow.

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

If we go by number of registrations, if the ccTLDs got 3 seats, 
Verisign should get 9.

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

I think it is quite possible that the GAC could come up with policies
much quicker than that.  While the process is indeed painful, they
already have produced effective policies -- for example, in the gTLD
approval process they have effectively asserted control over SLDs that
duplicate ISO3166 names. 

[...]

> >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.

Sorry, I'm a little too cynical to take that straight, I'm afraid :-). 
Indeed, I have the very highest respect and warm feeling for several
ccTLD managers I know personally.  But "specify and limit the authority
of ICANN" somehow seems just a wee bit selfish, to me, no matter how you
try to sugar coat it.  And of course, if they controlled ICANN, they 
would want it to succeed...

[...]

> >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.

Yes, of course: that is, they would like to control ICANN so that can
use ICANN as a lever against their own governments.  That is, you are
just putting a different spin on exactly what I said. 

By the way, could you point out to me any indication from ICANN that
ICANN is in favor of redelegation at whim?  Every case of redelegation 
that I have observed has been conducted with incredible care.

> >> 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.

Sure sure.  The real question is whether the ccTLDs position really 
merits another SO and unique representation on the board.  It certainly 
isn't clear to me at this point that it is warranted.

- -- 
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: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 08:57:26 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Montevideo Meeting Webcast About to Begin

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 8:37 AM
To: ICANN-Montevideo Remote Participants and Remote Preregistrants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Montevideo Meeting Webcast About to Begin

Just a quick reminder that today's ICANN Public Forum is about to begin.
The Public Forum is the primary opportunity for interested members of the
Internet community to provide comments to the ICANN Board during this ICANN
meeting.

(The Public Forum starts at 8:30AM local time -- which is 7:30AM US Eastern
time, 11:30AM UTC.)

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

For more information about the meetings, see
<http://www.icann.org/montevideo>.

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: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 13:32:28 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01C13933.DECEE1A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It seems both Jefsey and Kent misunderstood that I was referring to the =
commercial impact and not as to whether it was possible via technical =
measures or policy.

Whilst it may well be possible to implement .gb via existing policy, it =
would still be seen as just another non ".uk" tld aimed at the uk =
market.  Now that .uk has reached nearly 3 million registrations, it is =
firmly ingrained in the minds of the UK domestic market (thanks to =
collective weight of advertising by companies who use a .uk domain) - in =
much the same way that .com is within the US.

The notion that if there were a redelegation of .uk that offered free =
mirroring upon request also fails to take into account that .uk is =
heavily used by small businesses targetting their domestic market.  The =
"if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality prevails heavily in that =
sector.  As such, if the government did anything that caused confusion =
or additional administration for no material gain to the users =
themselves, then it would meet with very vocal opposition.

The UK government is committed to increasing the speed of online take-up =
and usage to help boost the flagging economy and so for them to do =
anything that would impede that process (which a redelegation would =
certainly do) is simply not going to happen.

It is worth remembering that Nominet is a non profit organization which =
is steered by its members, meaning their policies reflect what the ISP's =
want - so the ISP's would most likely be the ones to lose control if .uk =
was redelegated which again is not something that would make sense for =
the UK government (or ICANN for that matter).

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01C13933.DECEE1A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It seems both Jefsey and Kent =
misunderstood that I=20
was referring to the commercial impact and not as to whether it=20
was&nbsp;possible via technical measures or policy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Whilst it may well be&nbsp;possible to =
implement=20
.gb via existing policy, it would still be seen as just another non =
".uk" tld=20
aimed at the uk market.&nbsp; Now that .uk has reached nearly 3 million=20
registrations, it is firmly ingrained in the minds of the UK domestic =
market=20
(thanks to collective weight of advertising by companies who use a .uk =
domain) -=20
in much the same way that .com is within the US.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The notion that if there were a =
redelegation of .uk=20
that offered free mirroring upon request also fails to take into account =
that=20
.uk is heavily used by small businesses targetting their domestic =
market.&nbsp;=20
The "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality prevails heavily in that=20
sector.&nbsp; As such, if the government did anything that caused =
confusion or=20
additional administration for no material gain to the users themselves, =
then it=20
would meet with very vocal opposition.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The UK government is committed to =
increasing the=20
speed of online take-up and usage to help boost the flagging economy and =
so for=20
them to do anything that would impede that process (which a redelegation =
would=20
certainly do) is simply not going to happen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is worth remembering that Nominet is =
a non=20
profit organization which is steered by its members, meaning their =
policies=20
reflect what the ISP's want - so the ISP's would most likely be the ones =
to lose=20
control if .uk was redelegated which again is not something that would =
make=20
sense for the UK government (or ICANN for that matter).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul Cotton</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01C13933.DECEE1A0--

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:36:05 +0900 (JST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Comments from JPNIC and JPRS

One day prior, but ...

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Sep. 10, 2001
Dear ICANN Board,

After ICANN issued the two documents on "A Unique, Authoritative Root
for the DNS": discussion draft published on May 28th and the finalized
version on July 9th, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) and Japan
Registry Service Co., Ltd. (JPRS), who are administering JP domain
names, reviewed them and have expressed their views as the JP registry
in the following comments.

The comments have been published today via JPNIC's website for the local
and global Internet community.

We sincerely hope ICANN would take in consider these comments for future
policy development and its management.

Yours Sincerely,

Jun Murai
President
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Comments on Alternate Roots

It is vital that the name space be unique, as Internet users rely on
domain names to identify sites and other users. Therefore, competition of
name spaces should be avoided. In this context, there is a clear need
for some sort of central organization or coordination body. ICANN is
one such organization.

However, ICANN's recent introduction of the new gTLDs was less than swift,
and cost no little expense. This is one of the main reasons to stimulate
alternate roots activities. ICANN should accept the criticisms it is
receiving from outside the organization and reflect them on its activities.

Whatever the faults of the current ICANN, a central organization or
coordination body of some sort is needed. If we push ahead along the
path of reconciling ICANN and alternate roots, we will later strike the
recurring problem of needing a higher level ICANN-like organization or
coordination body. We will then have to tackle yet again the type of
difficulties that we have experienced in building ICANN, and this could
result in delays in the continued healthy growth of the Internet. We
feel a situation of this sort would be a major obstacle in ensuring
the stability of the Internet and its continued development.

In light of this, we propose the following:

(1) There should be a mechanism to ensure the uniqueness of name space
    for all Internet users. Currently, the root servers managed by
    ICANN/IANA are the best available mechanism for ensuring the name
    space uniqueness. Measures to counter any practice that could
    hinder the operation of this mechanism should be urgently
    researched and implemented.

(2) ICANN should work to speed up all procedures, including decision
    making and the implementation of those decisions.

(3) ICANN should swiftly review the new gTLDs, not limiting this to
    an evaluation of the introduced gTLDs, but also including an
    evaluation of the entire gTLD introduction process.

(4) ICANN should devote more energy to educational programs. Greater
    effort should be made to publicize the current advantages and
    drawbacks of the Internet and to promote an accurate understanding
    of such among Internet users.

Jun Murai
President
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)

Koki Higashida
President
Japan Registry Service Co., Ltd. (JPRS)

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
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 21:40:54 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear Michael;
The whole ICANN dominance strategy is to replace its missing usefullness in 
its mission creep areas by contracts.

If you consider carefully there have two rationales:
- - they tell the world "the size of the TLD (they encourage by the scarcity 
of TLDs) calls for contracts". Why? I don't know unlesss they want to 
obtain through contracts what they are missioned to obtain by competition.
- - they tell the Internet Participants "hey guys, you are dumb fools, so I 
the Good Big Brother, I am going to protect you against your own rights". 
(look at the pity of the arguments of the ICP-3...

The result is .biz and .info sunrize. Poor Connelly... Hapily the ccTLDs 
have no contract with the ICANN so they can maintain some quality. But they 
are under contract consideratin what blocks their innovation capacity.

This is pure East-Gemany theory and results. Strange for us non-US people 
like us to discover it coming from California. XIXth century concepts...

Jefsey

On 04:32 09/09/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>It would also be useful if ICANN were to publish some information about
>the current status of the escrow for the gTLDs.  Is there any data in
>there? How frequently is it updated?  This would seem (potentially) more
>critical to Internet stability than most of what ICANN does.
>
>Is this information out there somewhere?
>
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Mike Roberts wrote:
>
> > It might be useful to this dialog to review the model agreement and
> > the draft ccTLD agreement with AUDA for .au.  Among other things, it
> > provides for third party escrow of the database.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 20:37 -0400 9/8/01, L Gallegos wrote:
> > >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
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>                 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 very hot and humid 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

- --
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 #730
************************