[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes
Fortunately, it seems that the swedish government is on friendly terms with
the ".se" registry.
Now, for the sake of the argument, lets presume that they aren't and that
the ".se" operator doesn't agree with the Swedish government, and that push
comes to shove.
The Swedish government has just decided (in consultation or not, but that's
another matter) how they want ".se" to be run. As the ".se" registry is a
rather unique operation (business?), in that there are no other globally
visible ccTLDs for Sweden being run in Sweden, *ANY* legislation written up in
Sweden for the running of a TLD registry will be uniquely written for this
one singular case. Saying "lets apply international law" is an over
simplification and doesn't work unfortunately, so that can be left aside.
So, the Swedish government has suddenly drafted/decided/decreed/published or
whatever the rules on how ".se" is to be run. The *current* entity that runs
".se" is doing so from inside of Sweden, so obviously swedish law DOES apply
to them. From that point of view, whether you like it or not, whether you
agree with the Swedish laws or not, they DO apply.
Of course the entity may (or may not) have recourse within the swedish legal
system, and that may (or not) drag on for a while, but there is NO way that
you can somehow wriggle the ".se" registry immune from Swedish legislation,
short of moving it off-shore. Having said that, if it IS moved offshore,
when there are clearly facilities to run it from within Sweden, then suddenly
it is quite against the spirit of RFC-1591 hence the current entity loses
the registry. Also from RFC-1591 we have: "For top-level domains that are
country codes at least the administrative contact must reside in the country
involved.", so if the admin contact (living IN Sweden) is running something
that is legally wrong in Sweden, he has a problem with the courts...
It's completely a matter of common sense.
Continuing with the matter of common sense, the Swedish government has been
elected by the Swedish people, and therefore for all practical purposes
represents the common will of Sweden (you may want to put some sort of
argument here stating that the Swedish government does NOT represent the
people, or that for every move any government makes, a nation wide referendum
should be held... but it's a bit of a long shot). From RFC-1591 we have:
---
"...These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated
domain, and have a duty to serve the community.
The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for
both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global
Internet community."
---
If anyone can decide how the nation wants their ccTLD to be run, it's going
to be the government of that particular nation. In practical terms, the UN
has always decided that the recognized government speaks for the people. If
you don't like that attitude, then you're arguing for a whole new world
order (and I'm not talking about just the internet). If it *IS* what you are
arguing for, you are in the wrong place completely, as we only deal with
TLDs and not with who represents or not any given country. From RFC-1591
---
"Country Codes
The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is
not a country."
---
For what codes are assigned to what territories, we have ISO-3166. For whom
represents what country we have the governments of those countries. No, this
is not a political arena to decide that a given country got there by
overthrowing the previous one and therefore is invalid. Invalidate a given
government and the next one will inherit the "right" to have the ultimate
decision over the TLD.
It's purely common sense. You *CAN'T* fight the government just by declaring
yourself to be above it. In the best case scenario, you can work within the
legal system of that country to prove that they have overrun their own
limits, but good chance to you and take a look at the legal system in each
particular case. Anyhow, it would be a 100% internal matter to that
particular nation/territory. Putting it bluntly, as long as ".se" is run by
sweidsh people inside Sweden, then it's up to Sweden to decide how they do
it, and if it means Swedish people taking swedish people to court within the
swedish legal system, then it's nobody elses business but the swedish.
Yours, John Broomfield.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 01-Apr-2000 Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> > FYI,
> > The Swedish government will on Monday release a report suggesting new
> > rules for the administration of domain names under .se as well as detailed
> > changes of the registrations process and regulations thereof.
> >
> > This will be done although new regulations are released this (same)
> > Monday. These new regulations are since long released by the
> > self-regulatory body of .se.
> >
> > We won't know in detail what changes the government is planning or how it
> > will enforce them in practice (by force, compulsory purchase order or just
> > an order). I'll keep you posted if you're interested.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mikael
> > Disclaimer: I've been working with the regulations that now will be
> > changed by the Swedish government and I'm strongly opposed to
> > governmental intervention in this case.
> >
>
> Mikael,
>
> Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
> policies? The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
> and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any such
> dictates of the Swedish government.
>
> The Swedish Govt. appears to believe, wrongly, that the country code top level
> domains belong to the governments of the country the code refers to. Some
> other top level domains appear to have the sale faulty belief. ICANN appears
> to be perpetrating this false assumption as well.
>
> The .SE domain was delegated in 1986, and the only contract they are required
> to abide by is the one they entered into with IANA, which really was not a
> contract at all since RFC1591 didn't even exist then. Unless the SE registry
> had entered into a new contract with ICANN since then that changes the terms of
> the delegation, the Swedish Govt. has no claim for authority over this top
> level domain.
>
> I wonder what ICANN's legal liability is should they make a change in a
> delegation that is in direct violation of the existing delegation agreements
> with the ccTLDs. I am sure that ICANN is looking at that very carefully, and
> is one reason they are not acting on ccTLD issues very much at all right now.
>
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE45tJE8zLmV94Pz+IRAnzTAKDeKldtyR32SCz6w1pY0k3U9oJZvwCeJQdb
> FfxxbvXVEWZMU0+VnZzaS1Y=
> =FVJy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> 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