Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 02-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 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.

The government can surely pass a law through their legislative process.  No one
is disputing that, John, and I have always said that the legislative route is
the proper route for a government to take in the ccTLD policy area.

That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without force
of law.

> From RFC-1591 we have:

The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on the
delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between IANA
and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.

Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their delegation
authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
some strong liability.  


- --
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/

iD8DBQE459qA8zLmV94Pz+IRAoyHAJwPpKy05l40dxZrsDgqMY5SwX8e3ACfY8/n
yqUPIt8ia8kV0eF8BDPTxxs=
=Tshe
-----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