Re: [ga] your comments

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:35:52 -0400, "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
wrote:
>Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>                                                                                          
> the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the                                        
> ICANN project since its inception                                                        
>
>It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
>also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
>more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
>position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
>only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
>that they don't care to follow.  

This is not my understanding.  the position AFAIK is that on a narrow
range of technical policy issues, ccTLDs are happy to adhere to a
global policy in the interests of making the Internet work.  In fact
they all pretty much adhere to them now.  Such policies may be number
of name servers, geographical diversity of name servers etc.

What ccTLDs are not keen to do is give ICANN power to impose the UDRP
(for example) on them.  Or to be able to unilaterally declare that
certain ccTLDS which do not restrict registrations will in future be
treated like gTLDs.

>We might be able to agree that all parties
>could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
>parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
>individual national governments.  But there is still a core issue:  do the
>operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
>global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities to
>their local Internet community?  

Yes - the obligation is on narrow technical issues of
inter-operability.  But no there is not an obligation to be forced to
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for example on changing all
their registry databases to conform to a standard whois specification
which is not a technical necessity but a preference of certain people.

>If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
>establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global community.
>This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
>the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely that
>we will make much progress.  

The ccTLDs have stated they will accept ICANN policies but only in
certain pre defined areas.  I do not  believe they will not give carte
blanche decision making authority to ICANN, especially when ICANN has
shown itself numerous times to ignore the advice of SOs on matters
which affect them.  

>From your posting and its continuing criticism
>of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress.  Nevertheless, I
>look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
>closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.

I would also ask why ICANN has to be the body to establish global
ccTLD policies?  WHy not a world federation of ccTLDs?  Now that ICANN
has abandoned any pretence to being a representative body, why is it
more suited to decide what is good for the global internet community
compared to say such a federation of ccTLDS.  At least the majority of
them allow individual registrants the ability to join and vote on
policy issues.

DPF

(PS - note once again I speak for myself not for InternetNZ in this
forum)
--
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