Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 08:31:09PM +1200, DPF wrote:
> >Never happen.
> 
> On the contrary.  I am in no way (like William) a supporter of the alt
> root community.  However if ICANN tried to redelegate dozens of ccTLDs
> against their will and that of their Government there would be a
> dedicated root server for the ccTLDs within weeks.

I'm sorry, but this is a simpleminded and nonsensical argument, and the
fact that the ccTLDs ever made it was a terrible exposure of how weak
their position actually is. 

The "dedicated" root server you describe would be essentially useless. 
TLDs don't "use" the root server -- it is USERS who use the root server. 
There is simply no way to get information about any new "dedicated" root
server out there into all the resolvers on the Internet.  Moreover, the
nameservers for the ccTLDs must of necessity be public, so the
information can be mirrored by the ICANN root easily, and still 
maintain 100% visibility of the ccTLD zones, and its 100% 

> Even without that you would have meltdown.  ICANN for example could
> try and take .uk away from Nominet but with hundreds of ISPs in the UK
> all using Nominet they would beyond doubt all continue to recognise
> Nominet.

ICANN isn't going to try to take .uk away from Nominet.  The fact is
that the ccTLDs, ICANN, and the governments are embroiled in a
tremendously complex dance, and ICANN isn't going to do anything drastic
without substantial support from the GAC.  But if ICANN has support from
the GAC -- that is, if the interested governments come up with a uniform
position, then the ccTLDs will have no choice but to comply.  This is
what some of the ccTLDs fear more than anything else, because right now
they occupy a comfortable, oversight-free gap between ICANN and their
governments.  This is why the ccTLDs want disproportionate
representation on the board -- they fear the collectivity of their own
governments, and they think that they need control through the ICANN 
board.

Currently, from a global perspective there is a large governmental
policy vacuum towards ccTLDs.  But that vacuum is abhored, and it will
be filled.  The GAC offers governments a forum to come up with a uniform
policy toward their ccTLDs, and it is inevitable that its power and 
influence will grow.

> >> Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
> >> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)
> >
> >Most of those Governments simple do not OPPOSE their delegations.
> >What do you think the GAC is all about?  The governments feels they
> >don't have ENOUGH control over their ccTLDs, and what to see ICANN
> >give the more control.
> 
> Not at all.  The NZ Government has specifically recognised for example
> InternetNZ as the .nz manager.  NZ Govt is also a very active
> participant in GAC but not because it wants to control the .nz ccTLD.

Don't be so smug.  The NZ case is one of 242 special cases.  If the GAC 
comes to a uniform policy toward ccTLDs, .nz will go the way of the 
rest of the ccTLDs.

> Many Govts are in GAC to stop the US Government being the only
> Government of influence.  Others are there to protect their interests
> or to stop mission creep in GAC.

And others are there because they consider their ccTLDs to be out of 
control, and they want to control them.  

> >The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.
> 
> Of course they have.  But only up until the point they work with the
> Govt.  What you propose William is ICANN taking away the ccTLD
> registry from the current operator and giving to an overseas body, all
> with no consultation with the Government.

Sorry, that is an absurd strawman.

[...]

> The ccTLDs are possibly the only thing standing in the way of ICANN
> becoming what ICANNWATCH fears -a global law making policy with no
> restraints.

That is utter nonsense.

[...]

> They only support ICANN so long as ICANN does not act against them.
> You try to take .uk away from Nominet and give to say RIPE and you'll
> see Tony Blair on the phone to his mate George W.
> 
> A lot of small ccTLDs do not have much Govt involvement but the ones
> who matter do, and make sure they have their Govts on side.

Then why do ccTLDs so desparately want direct positions on the board? If
things were as you describe, then there would be no need for that. 

> >The ccTLD registries have an overinflated sense of their importance.
> >They think they can operate independent of ICANN?  I say let them try.
> 
> As long as they their Govt onside ICANN can do little.

Big if.  That is precisely the problem that ccTLDs face.

>  ICANN can act
> against a ccTLD Manager if they have the support of the local Govt to
> do so (as in .au) but would get crapped on from a large height by the
> US Govt if they tried to re-delegate against the wishes of a local
> Govt.
> 
> I almost wish they did try.  It would be one of the most amusing
> things to watch.  

More with the ridiculous strawmen.  The reason that ccTLDs want
positions on the board is because they don't want to be under the
control of their governments.  They want to control ICANN so they can
use ICANN as a lever against their own governments. 

[...]

> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.

...as long as, indeed.  That is precisely the issue.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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