Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

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

Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 10:08:10 PM, DPF wrote:

> 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.

Never happen.

> Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)

Most of those Governments simple do not OPPOSE their delegations.
What do you think the GAC is all about?  The governments feels they
don't have ENOUGH control over their ccTLDs, and what to see ICANN
give the more control.

The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.

> 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.  

Never happen.  It would take a LOT more than this to get people to use
a different root server network.  The ccTLDs cannot enforce a change
in people's root server usage in their country.  The control does not
emanate from them.

> 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.

Very VERY few of the ccTLDs involve the government in any way.  And
most of the ones that do have involvement support a strong ICANN, such
as UK, Germany, Argentina, and Australia (to name just a few).

The ccTLD registries have an overinflated sense of their importance.
They think they can operate independent of ICANN?  I say let them try.
And have ICANN remove them from the roots and redelegate their
registries in the ICANN controlled roots to those who will abide the
contracts, which you can bet will be heavy with control to the
governments.

Don't equate a few ccTLD registries being disgruntled with ICANN as
meaning their countries' governments feel the same.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
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 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