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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:13:06 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 08:31:09PM +1200, DPF wrote:
>> >Never happen.
>> 
>> 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.  

Well according to WIlliam they should do exactly that if the ccTLDs
don't all roll over and play dead within 90 days.  That is what I am
disputing.

>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.  

Yep but not just from GAC as a body but if it is sure of support from
the major governments individually.

>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.  

But GAC is showing no signs of trying to force ccTLDs to sign
contracts forcing them to fund ICANN with unlimited money and next to
no representation.

>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.  

Some ccTLDs have oversight from their local internet community.  If
people don't like what is happening they sack people at the AGM -
which is exactly what happened in NZ last year.  Much better oversight
than ICANN could do.

>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.

One could argue that representing 242 out of the 257 TLDs even six
Board Members would be under-represented.  I don't actually support
this and think three would be sensible.

I don't think the ccTLDs was control of the ICANN Board - they just
want a decent level of representation.

>> 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.

You assume GAC could come to a uniform policy.  Have you seen how long
treaties take to negotiate sometimes?

>> 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.  

Yep and I have sympathy for those governments.  In fact I have helped
advise one Government on how best to reclaim its ccTLD.

>> >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.

Read what William proposed.  

>> 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. 

Because many ccTLDs are not selfish and want ICANN to succeed and
would rather be part of ICANN than fighting it.  They want to specify
and limit the authority of ICANN but they do want it to succeed.

>>  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. 

Most ccTLDs recognise that if their Governments want a redelegation
the Government will win out eventually.  They would like there to be
some sort of due process so it can not be done at whim.  

>> 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.

I have never argued otherwise.  But if ICANN tried to do what William
proposed then most Govts would back their ccTLD.  if ICANN continues
to negotiate with ccTLDs (and it would help if they didn't for the
fifth meeting in a row post vital documents 48 hours before the
meeting despite specific condemnations of this practice each other
time it happens) then a compromise is likely which can server ICANN,
Govts and ccTLDs.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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