Re[4]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

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

Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 1:31:09 AM, DPF wrote:

> 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.

They don't have the resources, nor the means to get it in use.

> 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.

Not if there was a new delegate.  The ISPs would use the one in the
root that has the most exposure, and that would still be ICANN.

> 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.

Have you read the GAC stuff that is available?  It is just the
opposite.

>>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.

I never said that. I suspect ICANN would work closely with those
governments to find new delegates.  And explain to those governments
how the new contracts give the governments much more control and
authority than they have now, etc.

> 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.

You assume the ccTLD managers have that kind of influence.  In
practice, that is EXTREMELY rare. Maybe one or two cases, but those
cases are more likely to just sign the contract, since they already
have close government ties.

> 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.

You really think the ccTLD operators have such influence?

I don't see that at all. I think there are only a few ccTLDs who would
even be outraged enough to try.

> 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?

Because they have their attention focused elsewhere, on an area that
they are under MUCH more scrutiny about, and one which will make or
break them, the gTLD issue.

But don't think that will last forever.

> 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.

I strongly disagree with the illustrious Mr Froomkin and his
evaluation.  His tendency to exaggerate and blow things out of
proportion.....

> 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.

That's just it, David.  I seriously doubt it would end up that way.
Most of the ccTLDs don't have the backbone, nor a reasonable belief
that their governments would them in a battle with ICANN (esp. one
that ICANN can easily sell as giving more benefit and control to those
governments), to stick their necks out like that.

ICANN might have to make an example out of one.

And I think the .au redelegation may be setting just the kind of
precedent they want, a ccTLD being redelegated to give greater
government control, over the objections of the existing delegate, and
with a brand spanking new contract with ICANN.

You think they aren't setting a precedent for future action there?

> 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.

Again, this would never happen. This presupposes that governments
would oppose ICANN.  That is not the case.  The entire premise is that
ICANN would be acting in the best interests of those governments,
giving them what they have already said through the GAC that they
want, almost complete local control over the ccTLD.  The ccTLDs are
the ones fighting that kind of policy from ICANN.

> 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.

UK would sign the contract.   They already have a strong relationship
with the UK Government.  There is no reason for them not to sign the
contract.

> 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.  

No, not really, and like I said, the ones who do are the ones less
likely to find an issue with it.

> 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.

You assume the ccTLDs would be unified, and that their governments
would oppose ICANN on their behalf.

-- 
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