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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Leah and all assembly members,

L Gallegos wrote:

> That's my point.  the ccTLDs would have to be forced to sign
> contracts that would require them to turn over databases to ICANN.
>  Well, take the contract out of the picture since it does not exist
> and while the registries may have data escrowed (and they should,
> of course) they are under no oblgation to turn it over to ICANN.

  Exactly right!  And I believe that most of the ccTLD's kow this
despite WXW's yammerings to the contrary.

>
> They can turn it over to anyone they choose, which is the way it
> should be.

  Exactly right here again as well.  Again though, reacting to WXW's
yammerings in this area or for that matter any other, is simply over
reacting.

>  As long as the registry is being operated so that the
> domains resolve via their TLD servers, it is up to ICANN to not
> disenfranchise them by pointing to the correct servers for the TLD
> in question.
>
> ICANN is not a government and should not have the power to
> simply dictate to a ccTLD from another country, and subject to that
> country's culture and laws, that the registry should take the
> database and place it in the hands of a foreign body that is NOT
> subject to their laws and culture.

  ICANN has no such power.  It will likely never will have unless that
power is susceeded to them.  Any GOvt. that would do this would be
very foolish in the extreme, regardless of how convincing some of
the ICANN BOD and staff's arguments to the contrary would be
or have been.  Sweden demonstrated this in Stolkholm by denying
renegotiating .SE as well as the Root server there.

>  It does not matter if the ccTLD
> manager is the government itself or a national of that country.
> Further, if the ccTLD manager contracts with a foreign company to
> operate it's registry, that registry should still belong to that TLD
> manager in the country of origination.

  Yes, as long as this is what the Stakeholders and the govt for that
ccTLD still wish to be.

>
>
> I never said a registry should just disappear.  What I said is that it
> should not necessarily be arbitrarily re-delegated to someone else
> by ICANN or anyone else.

  Agreed.  And again WXW's yammerings to the contrary, are more
evidence that such should remain so.

>  I hope you won't say that it is not being
> done arbitrarily because that is exactly what has happened in AU.
>
> Now to get back to the original subject, the ccTLDs do have the
> leverage to insist that they will not simply kow tow to ICANN
> demands that they remain in the DNSO and they are forming their
> own organization.

  Agreed.  But to be effective the need to be more visible...

>
>
> I think it would extremely interesting to see what will happen if
> ICANN strong arms them when they have formed an association
> and agree among themselves to abide by their own guidelines for
> best practices.

  WHat the ICANN BOD and staff is trying to do it take them on
one at a time.  Some Ex-BOD and staff members are assisting
in this practice, such as Mike Roberts.  They will attempt to
divide and conquer to achieve this goal.  Once a few kow tow
to the pressure, the others may fall whole sale...  This is where the danger

is for the ccTLD community and their respective stakeholders.

>  They do have options and it would not be difficult
> for them to arrange whatever technical assistance they need.  They
> would, I am certain retain their registry databases on whatever
> servers they designate.  ICANN would, indeed, have to find a way
> to replicate it/them on their own designated servers.  It would be a
> fantastic mess and it would not do well for ICANN's apparance of
> legitimacy.

  The problem here is that too many of the ccTLD registries data bases
are too easily hacked.  As such, replicating those registry databases
on mass is not that difficult.

>
>
> The ccTLDs have indicated they wish to work with ICANN.  Let's
> see if ICANN will work with them.

  Well it is our members opinion that the ccTLD's would be better served
to work with ICANN where they can, but where they can't, or ICANN
will not do so, than the ccTLD's need to go their own way...

>
>
> Leah
>
> On 8 Sep 2001, at 14:45, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 2:05:33 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > > William, are you assuming that if the ccTLD were re-delegated in all
> > > countries, that the registry would turn over the database?  They are
> > > not all under contract and have obligation to do so.  The new
> > > delegation would have to recreate the database and provide new TLd
> > > servers.  I would say that it would not be a simple transition in
> > > many cases.
> >
> > I think it would.  I think that if the ccTLD didn't have the support
> > of their government, that they would not have much choice but to do
> > so.
> >
> > You will recall that I supported mandatory data escrow as a part of
> > all registry contracts, and that the registries specifically agree
> > that if they are unable or unwilling to continue operating the
> > registry, that they agree to sign over any and all intellectual
> > property related to the registry, including all databases, to ICANN
> > for reassignment to a new registry operator.
> >
> > In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.
> >
> > --
> > 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@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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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