RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Peter,
the rationale IMHO is that the Internet is the most human random 
distributed inter-connect system ever a part from human life itself.

Even if the ICANN was perfect it would be a single authoritative point of 
potential failure. It is therefore absolutely natural that self-protection 
develops under the form of several governance centers. This is a natural 
stability protection process you will observe everywhere in reality and 
nature. In the case of the failure of one of these governance centers, the 
others are there. This gives a stability feeling increasing the stability.

Our only concern, as such governance develop, is to keep them as much as 
possible in cooperation (so we may trust them all) while under some 
competition (for better services and innovation), i.e. in coopetition.

ccTLDs are obviously forming one of these points of governance. I suppose 
that VeriSign may emerge as another one, as value added roots, China, 
Europe, etc... That ccTLDs stay within the ICANN and VeriSign has links 
established through the cooperation agreement are good things.

As involved in value added roots and as an European I am quite concerned by 
the potential instability fostered by the ICANN policy that these two 
emerging governance centers may object to. The same, I agree with the 
proposed addition by the ALSC of the Western-Asia geographical area, but I 
am concerned by the Easter-Europe, Chinese and Oceans areas not taken into 
account.

Jefsey






On 19:54 01/09/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>I believe that
>1. icann should interact with  ccTLDs.
>2. ccTLDs should inteact with ICANN.
>
>The Internet is truly global. Both technicasl coordination and model
>policy should be as consistent as possible.
>
>This does not mean that "ICANN rules".
>
>Here's an example, ICANN has UDRP, ccTLDs have, or will have "Local
>DRP". Interaction will assure that each TLD has SOME kind of dispute
>resolution policy, and that such policy is applied fairly.
>
>Also, interaction and consultation between various constituencies and
>Sos facilitates the security and stability of the global Internet
>
>Peter de Blanc
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:08 PM
>To: Peter Dengate-Thrush
>Cc: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>Actually, I kind of wonder
>1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
>2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
>
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
> > To: <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 30 Aug 2001, at 10:39, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2001-08-29 18:38:46 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I thought that DNSO stood for DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING
> > > > >ORGANIZATION. How in the world can that be transformed so that it
>
> > > > >no longer has responsibility for domain name policy?
> > > >
> > > > Look at the ccTLDs.  Responsibility for domain name policy _will_
> > > > be split over multiple SOs.
> > >
> > > ccTLDs should have complete control over their policies, domain or
> > > otherwise.  The DNSO should continue to have the same concerns it
> > > has had.
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Its because the cc's actually have complete control over their
> > policies that makes them so different from the gTLDs, which are "owned
>
> > and controlled" by ICANN.
> >
> > The cc's are responsible to their Local Internet Community, which is a
>
> > self defining community,  and which more and more involves the
> > government of the territory whose name corresponds to the 2 letter ISO
>
> > code for that territory.
> >
> > Its because the DNSO has in fact only ever dealt with gTLD domain name
>
> > issues that the cc's have voted to withdraw. The DNSO was never
> > intended or able to affect ccTLD domain name issues.
> >
> > > The at-large OTOH encompasses the whole enchilada.  The ccTLD SO may
>
> > > also encompass more than just domain names, as well as being
> > > autonomous and having the right to participate or not in the ICANN
> > > process.  The fact that most of them choose to participate is good
> > > for ICANN, whether they adopt all or some of ICANN's policies.
> > > They, also need a stronger voice.
> > >
> > > I hope the board gets the message.
> >
> > Me, too. I am confident that it has.
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> > ccTLD Adcom Member
> >
> > --
> > 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 very hot and humid 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@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