Re: [ga] 3 Ownership Questions

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Thank you Mr. de Blanc,

Please take special notice of the APNIC agreement with ICANN.  There seems
special allowance for provisions which would allow such application,
especially in conjunction with the redefinition of Internet user.

Basically speaking ICANN decides what is a politically correct stance and if
the APNIC contracts with any party not in conformity to such a stance then
certainly it is grounds for breach.  Probably not a legal case but a
political case to force ccTLDs into lock step with ICANN Staff and BoD
policies.  Woe be to any developing country's' nic that uses independent
thought and gets their country booted from the International clique.

I especially watch with interest the developing of Vietnams' new policies
and Mexico's' declaration that the internet be used more broadly for
education and access by student users. Columbia and the aspiring dotDM are
at major risk, just as we watch with interest the direction of our
beleaguered friends in the Philippines.  We should watch with special
interests Balkans and subAfrika, capture is real and exploitation is a
simple result of lack of support from international standards.  These damned
International Standards are requiring too much while providing too little to
nations struggling to match certain IP and Union standards, they should act
as a hand which pulls up as much as it pushes down.  The desire to meet
international criteria and obtain international funding for poverty relief
and infrastructure should not be creating a brand new colonialism which I
fear it does.

Perhaps if the Internet were "owned" by my Internation dotcommoners a more
just policy could result, perhaps not.  But I do believe an Internation of
ccTLD users may be the best hope to counter ICANNs imperialistic
colonialism.

Sincerely,
Eric
ps. I now add to my fun spell checks.
At-Large = altar
ICANN= Icon
APNIC= panic
BoD = baud
NIC = nice
ccTLD=Cutlass
this is getting great for a spellcheck parody
Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Eric-

>
> While I do not endorse your entire posting, I do note with interest your
> comment that the member would be a person who had a domain name obtained
> via an icann-approved registrar.
>
> Yes, this does pose a potential dilemma for domain holders in the ccTLD
> namespace.
>
> Peter de Blanc
> Chair, ccTLD AdCom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Eric
> Dierker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:24 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] 3 Ownership Questions
>
> It has come to pass that we now have several ownership questions which
> may come down to only three on final analysis.
>
> ICANN ownership. (can it really be that no one owns a corporation, which
> contracts with the US Gov.) Domain Name ownership. (if there are no
> ownership rights then what are
> they)
> Internet Ownership. ( The US government certainly contracts as though it
> is a US public resource) At-Large Ownership. (otherwise known as
> membership) ccTLD Ownership. (constantly changing)
>
> Most folks have some understanding of Deeds and Leases.  Few understand
> Fee Simple Absolutes and Land Lease issues with federal governments.  It
> is important that these type of property interests developed over time.
> Now we have a new type of property and we need in the first order of
> business to set up stable rules for definition and use.  I am not
> concerned with the definitions as a philosophical matter as in what is
> Justice.
>
> We simply need to come up with a framework to handle these issues so
> that those in authority cannot change the rules as they go along.
>
> I note specifically the At-Large Draft changing, by faulty analysis, the
> meaning of Internet User to a Domain Name Holder from an accredited
> ICANN registrar.  I can only assume that soon ccTLDs and Domain Names
> outside of ICANNs contractual sphere will be told to buy an ICANN Domain
> Name or retire their membership in any ICANN organization.
>
> Transferability; If you cannot be sure what right you transfer or
> receive that creates an instability and needs to be remedied.
>
> I cite in general reference Karls' writings on ICANN's ownership, Ms.
> Ronys' site on historical and current documentation and the ongoing list
> of what is a domain name.  Of course a few years of study of feudalism,
> liaise faire, communism, US zoning laws and colonialism is a good basis
> for evaluating property rights.
>
> The GA should address these issues on an ongoing basis and create its'
> own review to complete the work.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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

--
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