Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Sovereign is a very good word.  But alas it only means independent
within ones'
borders.  BTAs, WTO, WB, Economic Indicators, Poverty reduction etc.
etc.
require interfacing and hence breach the independent gap.
ASEAN for instance uses English as its' language of official
communication.
Is ICANN the recognized and official communication of the Internet?
Should Mr. Lowry take his ball and play with the Inclusives?
These are tough issues not to be "resolved" "globally" or are they?
Those of us working in and for and with developing countries have one
hell of a burden to get this right and right is not always right
elsewhere.

I envy those who get to work in an official capacity for one single
ccTLD.
They can stand on what is best for that country comply with ISOs and
stand that ground.  And I am certain that is good for the sovereign. 
But
when they must interface with another sovereign in order to promote
trade
and reduce poverty and increase communications it gets very hairy to act
the isolationist.

It was easy when dotCOM was the global marketplace.  And over the last
several
years it has worked.  But now as ccTLDs become a vehicle for social and
economic
advancement we find ourselves needing to co-operate.  Here is where I am
most
saddened by the oligarchy of ICANN.  It has not foreseen the future and
it is
stale
in the art of consensus.  My best friends who are techies can do it all,
but us
pollywogs
have failed miserably in connecting the world.  We are connected
electronically
but
not culturally or socially or economically.

"We have a long way to go and a short time to get there" - Thank you
Karl.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I think that people outside the country, including ICANN, have a right to
> make independent decisions concerning how they choose to react to a
> country's exercise of its sovereign powers.  Conversely, I think a country
> has the right to the substantially unfettered exercise of those powers --
> at home.
>
> Thus, if a country wants to regulate its ccTLD, it may.  If it wants to
> nationalize it, it may subject to international norms on nationalizations.
>
> But it can't *make* me do anything if I live abroad unless I choose to.
>
> Suppose country X tortures a ccTLD admin into agreeing to a redelegation.
> I think it might be perfectly appropriate to ignore that.
>
> All this is of course separate from the question of what those of us
> outside SA should do if this project goes forward; my point here is purely
> that we have legal and moral freedom of action, not to suggest either that
> the situation is anything like the torture hypo, nor that a particular
> reaction is necessarily the correct one.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Elizabeth,
> >
> > I would appreciate getting your perspective on the article below (first
> > posted to the NCDNHC list).  It raises the issue of what constitutes an
> > appropriate redelegation process.  If a sovereign nation-state has passed
> > laws stipulating that the local government will take over the
> > responsibilities of the current TLD manager, does ICANN have the right to
> > interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by refusing to
> > redelegate until such time as there is agreement between the present
> > administrator, government, and significant interested parties?  This strikes
> > me as equivalent to the exercise of foreign policy powers (that I don't
> > believe have ever been granted to ICANN by the US government).
> >
> > I don't yet have a set opinion on this subject, so your thoughts would be of
> > help in understanding the issue better.
> >
> > >From Business Day (South Africa) 3 June 2002
> >
> > State's plan on internet domain names raises alarm Political
> > Correspondent CAPE TOWN A proposal by the parliamentary communications
> > committee to establish a section 21 company to manage domain names on
> > the internet in SA has raised alarm bells about a looming crisis that
> > could see all internet connections in the country cut off.
> >
> > Supported by the communications department and the African National
> > Congress, the proposals in the Electronic Communications and
> > Transactions Bill on setting up a domain name authority are vehemently
> > opposed by opposition parties and the current administrator of the ZA
> > domain.
> >
> > The committee plans to finalise and vote on the bill today . Much of the
> > chapter on the domain names was approved and voted on Friday but could
> > be discussed again today. Government is opposed to the current
> > administrative system for the ZA domain name, which it says is
> > "monopolistic" and without a regulatory framework to manage the expected
> > explosive growth of the internet.
> >
> > Communications chairman Nkenke Kekana said that the domain name
> > authority had to be "representative, accountable to all South Africans
> > and proactive in promoting the internet".
> > In terms of the bill, the communications minister would appoint a panel
> > which would recommend nominated candidates to be appointed to the board
> > of a section 21 firm.
> >
> > But domain name administrator Mike Lawrie, who is one of the cochairmen
> > of Namespace ZA, which will take over the administration in future, has
> > objected to the excessive powers the minister would wield over the
> > domain name system in SA.
> >
> > Lawrie said this was "quite unacceptable". He warned of a "national
> > disaster", saying he would not hand over the administration if
> > government interference in the internet was provided for in law.
> >
> > If Lawrie refused to get himself licensed as required by the bill, this
> > would mean he could no longer continue operating and that the
> > administration of the ZA domain name would collapse.
> > This would mean that normal internet and e-mail connections would no
> > longer function.
> >
> > "The vast majority of internet connections in and into this country will
> > simply not happen, because the ZA domain name servers will grind to a
> > halt and make all subdomains of ZA totally unreachable," Lawrie said.
> >
> > The gov.za domain name would also not work. "Parliament cannot pass
> > legislation and expect that the internet will kowtow to that
> > legislation. It does not work that way. The legislation must in keeping
> > with the standards of the internet, or it will lead to problems.
> >
> > "There are very clear standards laid down for how a redelegation of a
> > country code domain shall take place," he said. For the redelegation to
> > meet international standards laid down by the Internet Corporation for
> > Assigned Names and Numbers there has to be agreement between Lawrie, as
> > the present administrator, government, and significant interested
> > parties.
> >
> > Democratic Alliance communications spokeswoman Dene Smuts said the bill
> > "bald-facedly expropriates" the existing domain name authority. She
> > rejected government's rationale for a new administrative system, saying
> > a domain name authority did not and could not roll out services.
> >
> > See also:
> > http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2002/0206031206.asp?O=TE
> >
> > Controversial ECT Bill discussions come to an end
> > BY PHILLIP DE WET, ITWEB NEWS EDITOR
> > [SNIP]
> > During the weekend, Andile Ngcaba, director-general of the Department of
> > Communications, said an amended version would see an intermediary panel
> > inserted into the process. The minister would appoint the independent
> > panel, which would in turn appoint the directors of the domain
> > authority.
> >
> > But current .za administrator Mike Lawrie, who has controlled the domain
> > since its inception, has vowed not to hand control over to a government
> > he believes not technically capable of handling the fragile system. He
> > has warned that domain names, and e-mail addresses, that use the popular
> > ..co.za suffix could "go dark" due to improper management.
> >
> > Lawrie has, since 1998, been involved in setting up an organisation to
> > take over from him. Such a body, Namespace SA, was formed in September
> > last  year. Government was invited to participate in the body and
> > appoint representatives to its board, but declined.
> >
> > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
> > is responsible for globally overseeing the domain name system, requires
> > the consent of the current administrator for any re-delegation of
> > responsibility.
> > [SNIP]
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  | http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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