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

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

Mike and all assembly members,

  I noticed that Annex 2 is missing although pointed to in a link in the
URL you reference below.  Could this letter from Robert Elz, be
awaiting editing from the ICANN Staff or BoD members?

  None the less, Mike, it seems from some of the communications from
Rober Elz on other forums, is not quite ready for the delegation of .AU?

  In addition, with respect to you comments in response to Leah.  You only
addressed with this agreement in progress (URL listed below), only
ONE of the points that Leah was enumerating.


Mike Roberts wrote:

> It might be useful to this dialog to review the model agreement and
> the draft ccTLD agreement with AUDA for .au.  Among other things, it
> provides for third party escrow of the database.
>
> - Mike
>
> http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm
>
> At 20:37 -0400 9/8/01, 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.
> >They can turn it over to anyone they choose, which is the way it
> >should be.  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.  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.
> >
> >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.  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.
> >
> >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.  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 ccTLDs have indicated they wish to work with ICANN.  Let's
> >see if ICANN will work with them.
> >
> >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
>
> --
> --
> 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