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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 22:19:41 -0700, William X Walsh
<william@userfriendly.com> wrote:
>Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 10:08:10 PM, DPF wrote:
>
>>>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.

On the contrary.  I am in no way (like William) a supporter of the alt
root community.  However if ICANN tried to redelegate dozens of ccTLDs
against their will and that of their Government there would be a
dedicated root server for the ccTLDs within weeks.

Even without that you would have meltdown.  ICANN for example could
try and take .uk away from Nominet but with hundreds of ISPs in the UK
all using Nominet they would beyond doubt all continue to recognise
Nominet.

>> 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.

Not at all.  The NZ Government has specifically recognised for example
InternetNZ as the .nz manager.  NZ Govt is also a very active
participant in GAC but not because it wants to control the .nz ccTLD.

Many Govts are in GAC to stop the US Government being the only
Government of influence.  Others are there to protect their interests
or to stop mission creep in GAC.

>The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.

Of course they have.  But only up until the point they work with the
Govt.  What you propose William is ICANN taking away the ccTLD
registry from the current operator and giving to an overseas body, all
with no consultation with the Government.

Now let me tell you if that was to be attempted all wrath would break
free as ccTLD managers tell their Government the registry for their
country code is moving overseas due to the US Govt and a US based
corporation.

There would be angry phonecalls to the US Government and not to minor
bureaucrats in DOC but from Heads of Governments to the US Secretary
of State.  The wrath would be so great that ICANN would be left
without even permission to tie its own shoelaces.

Now if you think what I say isn't true, then why do you think ICANN
haven't moved against the ccTLDs as you suggest?  Do you think it is
because they are nice patient people who would rather negotiate things
or because they already pushed in that position and found they didn't
have a shit show in hell of coming close to succeeding.

The ccTLDs are possibly the only thing standing in the way of ICANN
becoming what ICANNWATCH fears -a global law making policy with no
restraints.  So I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the ccTLDs and
cheerlead for ICANN to move against them.

Also as a final point ICANN claims to have as its most fundamental aim
the stability of the Internet.  A forcible re-delegation of 50+ ccTLDs
would possibly be the very worse possible thing they could do which
conflicts with that aim.

>> 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.

You mis-understand.  The US Govt would instruct Root Server A to point
to the alternative root server for all ccTLDs or alternatively just
ignore ICANN's attempts to re-delegate against the wishes of local
Govts.

>> 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).

They only support ICANN so long as ICANN does not act against them.
You try to take .uk away from Nominet and give to say RIPE and you'll
see Tony Blair on the phone to his mate George W.

A lot of small ccTLDs do not have much Govt involvement but the ones
who matter do, and make sure they have their Govts on side.  

>The ccTLD registries have an overinflated sense of their importance.
>They think they can operate independent of ICANN?  I say let them try.

As long as they their Govt onside ICANN can do little.  ICANN can act
against a ccTLD Manager if they have the support of the local Govt to
do so (as in .au) but would get crapped on from a large height by the
US Govt if they tried to re-delegate against the wishes of a local
Govt.

I almost wish they did try.  It would be one of the most amusing
things to watch.  

>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.

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.

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