[ga] Government Control Over ccTLDs

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:29:24 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> I also firmly believe that the ccTLDs are not, and should not be
> assumed to be, under the control of the governments of the countries
> the ccTLD codes represent.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 14:18:13 +1300, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> This represents a major mis-undersatnding on your part. I suggest you
> begin by looking at the control your own government exerts over your
> own cctld, .US.

Hi Peter

I'd actually agree with WXW here.  You gave Australia as an example.  Here
is a recent letter to the Australian DNS mailing list in which a participant
was arguing that auDA SHOULD be made subject to Government legislative
control.  The posting raises some interesting issues for debate.  For
context I include an earlier extract from my posting on the same thread.

References to NOIE are to the relevant Australian government agency.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:55:32 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> There is no doubt the government maintains a "watching brief" but their
> view, as far as I can tell, is to allow true industry self regulation.  I
> strongly support that approach. As well, I am particularly cautious to
> ensure a proper balance is maintained, in the decision making process,
> between "supply" and "demand" as well as "organisations".

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:52:51 +1100, a participant replied to auDA's CEO:

>>Soon we will be commencing our 'education campaign' to inform people about
the new changes etc. When we do that we will also be able to deal with
existing practices (snip)

Good news - I think the confusion over wording was due to your posting being
in response to calls for better marketing of public calls for comment on
draft policies - I don't think anyone suggested that auDA should adopt a
"scatter-gun" approach - this would clearly be foolish, however I do look
forward to a managed marketing campaign (and to meetings being held in other
locations - great suggestion Patrick).

>> As for approaching NOIE, whilst I cannot speak for them, my understanding
is that they support a self-regulatory system that is self funded. A
self-regulatory system, by definition does not have a legislative basis from
which to operate but regulates itself. (snip)

Chris, with the greatest of respect, this interpretation that "industry
self-regulation" must be free of legislative regulations is the root of most
of our problems, and is demonstrably false - in fact I have no idea where
this interpretation has come from, because (and I wait to stand corrected),
to the best of my knowledge there is NOT ONE self-regulating industry in
Australia without a legislative basis - that in fact self-regulation works
for the very reason that there is a legislative base on which to construct
self-regulatory policies and practices - This is true of a range of
industries including the pharmaceutical, food processing, transport,
automotive (sorry Bruce), manufacturing, importing, retail... (and the list
goes on and on).

To focus on a specific example raised by Bruce T - the automotive industry
is not "self regulated" by the RACV, this is simply an insurance company
with an automotive association 'arm' who certify repairers willing to meet a
given set of requirements (and to pay a fee). Automotive Industry
self-regulation occurs through organisations like the  MTA (Motor Traders
Association) and the IAME (Institute of Automotive Mechanical Engineers),
who operate under the legislative basis determined by the MVRIC (Motor
Vehicle Repair Industry Council - a Statutory Body) and with contests
determined by Statutory institutions such as the Department of Fair Trading.

If we are going somehow try and justify a model of Industry self-regulation
without a legislative basis by providing precedent, it's probably not a good
idea to use one of the most heavily regulated industries in Australia as an
example! - Automotive Industry self-regulation does work (most of the time)
for the very reason that there is a legislative basis on which to operate -
They don't have this issue of shonky sellers and spam marketing because
automotive retailers are governed by legislation, even though the industry
itself is internally regulated (I hope everyone comprehends the
distinction).

I'm beginning to suspect that many of our problems, and much of our
frustration, has it's roots in this interpretation - that 'self-regulation'
somehow means an industry beholding to no-one but themselves - To anyone
working in any other 'self-regulated' industry, this is an extraordinary
interpretation of the term, and demonstrative of an industry that in truth
wants no regulations at all.

I can understand this mindset from those who profit from selling domains and
other related services (why would resellers want their markets possibly
curtailed through "prohibitive" legislation?) - however to the rest of us,
the 99.9% who make up the group loosely known as "customers", it is
terrifying to think the Internet industry is so arrogant as to believe they
should be free of any regulatory processes - the very processes (and the
only ones) designed to guarantee our protection and adequately empowered to
ensure this occurs.

I really think it's about time NOIE were brought to the table about all of
this - perhaps even they don't understand what industry self-regulation
means, after all they are a relatively new entity themselves, however this
one must be resolved - it's simply too important, and the risk of our
industry being dominated by a handful of companies who would refute any
rights we have to seek a legislative operating basis, is simply too
dangerous to allow.





--
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