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

[rmjmeyer <rmjmeyer@magnetpoint.com>]

If I recall correctly, SE is a monarchy. The rules are different.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
> X. Walsh
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 4:41 PM
> To: John Charles Broomfield
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; lessig@cyber.law.harvard.edu; edyson@edventure.com;
> gcln@gcln.com; mikael@pawlo.com
> Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 02-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > The Swedish government has just decided (in consultation or 
> not, but that's
> > another matter) how they want ".se" to be run. As the ".se" 
> registry is a
> > rather unique operation (business?), in that there are no 
> other globally
> > visible ccTLDs for Sweden being run in Sweden, *ANY* 
> legislation written up
> > in
> > Sweden for the running of a TLD registry will be uniquely 
> written for this
> > one singular case. Saying "lets apply international law" is an over
> > simplification and doesn't work unfortunately, so that can 
> be left aside.
> > So, the Swedish government has suddenly 
> drafted/decided/decreed/published or
> > whatever the rules on how ".se" is to be run. The *current* 
> entity that runs
> > ".se" is doing so from inside of Sweden, so obviously 
> swedish law DOES apply
> > to them. From that point of view, whether you like it or 
> not, whether you
> > agree with the Swedish laws or not, they DO apply.
> 
> The government can surely pass a law through their 
> legislative process.  No one
> is disputing that, John, and I have always said that the 
> legislative route is
> the proper route for a government to take in the ccTLD policy area.
> 
> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive 
> edict, without force
> of law.
> 
> > From RFC-1591 we have:
> 
> The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are 
> not binding on the
> delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the 
> "contract" between IANA
> and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract 
> is the text of
> RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the 
> RFC1591 cannot be
> binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.
> 
> Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to 
> the creation of
> RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, 
> their delegation
> authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts 
> to change that
> now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they 
> could really face
> some strong liability.  
> 
> 
> - --
> 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/
> 
> iD8DBQE459qA8zLmV94Pz+IRAoyHAJwPpKy05l40dxZrsDgqMY5SwX8e3ACfY8/n
> yqUPIt8ia8kV0eF8BDPTxxs=
> =Tshe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 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