[ga-full] RE: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 01-Apr-2000 Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> FYI,
> The Swedish government will on Monday release a report suggesting new
> rules for the administration of domain names under .se as well as detailed
> changes of the registrations process and regulations thereof.
> 
> This will be done although new regulations are released this (same)
> Monday. These new regulations are since long released by the
> self-regulatory body  of .se.
> 
> We won't know in detail what changes the government is planning or how it
> will enforce them in practice (by force, compulsory purchase order or just
> an order). I'll keep you posted if you're interested.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mikael
> Disclaimer: I've been working with the regulations that now will be
> changed by the Swedish government and I'm strongly opposed to
> governmental intervention in this case.
> 

Mikael,

Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
policies?  The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any such
dictates of the Swedish government.

The Swedish Govt. appears to believe, wrongly, that the country code top level
domains belong to the governments of the country the code refers to.  Some
other top level domains appear to have the sale faulty belief.  ICANN appears
to be perpetrating this false assumption as well.

The .SE domain was delegated in 1986, and the only contract they are required
to abide by is the one they entered into with IANA, which really was not a
contract at all since RFC1591 didn't even exist then.    Unless the SE registry
had entered into a new contract with ICANN since then that changes the terms of
the delegation, the Swedish Govt. has no claim for authority over this top
level domain. 

I wonder what ICANN's legal liability is should they make a change in a
delegation that is in direct violation of the existing delegation agreements
with the ccTLDs.  I am sure that ICANN is looking at that very carefully, and
is one reason they are not acting on ccTLD issues very much at all right now.


- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE45tJE8zLmV94Pz+IRAnzTAKDeKldtyR32SCz6w1pY0k3U9oJZvwCeJQdb
FfxxbvXVEWZMU0+VnZzaS1Y=
=FVJy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html