Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:44:19 -0700, William X Walsh
<william@userfriendly.com> 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
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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