RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chuck,
I am lost here. How an ICANN policy could conflict with any local law?
ICANN policy only consists in saying everyone "This is the way "I" do the 
protocol, the IP block address and the master root registry management".

What you mean is mission creep or dishonnesty conflicting with local laws. 
And you want the world trade power to rule the nations? But nations are not 
only dollars and TMs.

What we have just lived and unfortunately what we will live in the coming 
days, weeks, months and, may be, years will show us that you are right here:

At 13:14 14/09/01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>In cases where the ICANN community might propose policies
>contrary to country or territory interests, some work between affected
>parties will need to happen.  Where there may be impact beyond the local
>jurisdiction, I think that it may be necessary to implement a global policy
>instead of a local policy.  Otherwise, the chances of confusion will be
>increased.

Confusion is here.
BTW why the ICANN community would be not the World Internet Community?

>These situations will have to be dealt with on a case by case
>basis because of the variance of local laws, customs and practices, but
>ultimately I do not believe that the global implications should be ignored
>just because a country or region is involved.

And we are living a global implication right now.

>That I think is the nature of
>the Internet.  Any country or territory can establish their own private
>network and set their own policies for it.  When they want to play in the
>global arena, it becomes a different game.

There is no global arena per se: a global area is always someone's globality.
"Global" is not "universal" nor "World", nor "total"...
The change Bush says we are about to face will precisely be for many to 
understand that.

What is frustrating is that the Internet as both as an image and as agent 
of the social change of the world should permit the ICANNers to be among 
the first having understood this and to help peace and development through 
an "open inter" image and possibilities, instead of "locked net" for the 
sake of the ICANN's account at Jones Days and NSI's share value.

Sorry if I am upset. I target no one ...
But some times too much is too much.
Jefsey

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:ga_list@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:19 AM
>To: cgomes@verisign.com; paul-dns@svensson.org; ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>Chuck,
>
> >
> >I would assume that the primary way of implementing policy with ccTLDs
> >would
> >be via contracts with ICANN, just like with gTLDs.
>
>In a perfect world, you would be right.
>In this imperfect world, ICANN is subject to USG authority, while the ccTLDs
>
>are designed to be subject to their countryīs authority (even if some then
>decide, without opposition from their respective countries, to be
>commercially open worldwide).
>What if ICANNīs policies would be contrary to the policies wanted by the
>country?
>
>Look at it the other way around.
>The ccTLDs have the constraint of the policies, rules, and law of their home
>
>country. To be subject to ICANNīs restrictions on top of that would be
>unfair.
>
>Of course, the situation would be different if ICANN would not be submitted
>to the authority of USG, but to international jurisdiction. But, as we say
>in Italy, you donīt make history with "if"s.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
> >
> >My question was really oriented toward whether or not people thought that
> >the competitive marketplace should be relatively level for all competitors
> >in the same market (e.g., open TLDs).  Some apparently think that that is
> >not necessary; in other words, some think it is okay to apply different
> >standards to some registries than to others, thereby putting some at a
> >possible disadvantage.  With the possible exception of policies relating to
> >local laws and customs, I tend to think that the competitive playing field
> >should be as level as possible.  And I think it is important to realize
> >that
> >this is not just a .com issue.  Should the new registries have more rigid
> >restrictions in operating their businesses than ccTLD registries with whom
> >they are competing?
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul Svensson [mailto:paul-dns@svensson.org]
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:11 AM
> >To: ga@dnso.org
> >Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > >Should ccTLDs then be able to freely compete with gTLDs without having
> >the
> > >same controls that are imposed on gTLDs?
> >
> >Chuck,
> >
> >If they do so with the (implied or expressed) support of the
> >government of the country or territory designated by the ccTLD,
> >how would you plan to stop them ?
> >
> >       /Paul
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>--
>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-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