Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 07:27 02/03/02, DPF said:
> >I am now rapidly approaching the opinion that the ccTLDs should carry
> >on forming their own peer association and then negotiate directly with
> >the US Department of Commerce to take over ICANN's role with regards
> >to any ISO3166-1 entries in the root.
>
> At last :-) But I am afraid this is too late because of ".us" expected size
> and signed agreements with au and jp which will be delaynig. Also the
> differences among the ccTLDs. And basically because the ccTLDs share the
> IANA functions with the gTLDs, the DoC havnig no particular priviledege
> except running its own root server system. IANA (once restored) should
> serve as a source of master root file for every global root server system.

I'll leave the matter of ISO rules to those who know more about them than
I do, but this matter of negotiating with the DofC needs comment. Upon the
entry of private parties into internet administration, the question must be
asked, what authority is left with the DofC?  The ARPAnet was "owned"
by the USG because ARPA had created it, but then when the USG divested
itself of it except through its contracts with NSI, it created only a fish
line  (2 lb
test) of a supervisory capacity.  So far as I can see, the DofC (through the
IANA) has never exercised any control over NSI, nor subsequently over
ICANN (the "new" "Newcorp"). Meanwhile, back at NSI, it was seeking to
claim ownership of the .com, .org and .gov names as such -- a truly arrogant
effort that was properly thwarted. So what's to own? (Even though NSI was
sold to Verisign for $17 billion, gained from "property" belonging to the USG
-- which is to say, you and me.)

Upon what authority does ICANN act? What lawful control over the Internet,
and both the technical and policy aspects of it, does the USG have? From what
statute and Constitutional provision? Or more properly, since the Internet is
global, from what part of International law? Since we all know that contracts
must be supported by value, what "value" is received by any ccTLD or registrar
by way of a contract with ICANN? To be sure, these entities are "granted,"
by ICANN, the "right" to do this or that. But what if those entities had the
"right" to do "this or that" anyway? What consideration would then have
been received by them so as to support the contracts? To be sure, ICANN
performs services, but what if these entities were to commence carrying out
those functions themselves?

In short, where are the clothes of the ICANN empire? And why is it here?
(It indeed needs to be replaced by something, and preferably an entity formed
through international agreement such as the WTO, WIPO, etc., or perhaps
a public/private entity involving both governments and trade groups, etc, but
please don't call it a "global ICANN" -- we've seen enough of that.)

>
> The only way is to have the ccTLD Managers participaing to their National
> Internet Conference boards (NIC). These NIC will  gather national@large
> [for legtimacy, dynamism and innovation], consumer organizations, ISPs,
> content providers, user association, GAC representative, etc..
>
> The NIC will form an ICANN constituency-orgnization-SO [as you may like]
> and will work at being acknowldged as the ICANN/GA. The ICANN contract will
> then be replaced by a voted global ICANN  NIC Membership equal to all. This
> Membeship will detail the committees/SOs etc.. the different groups of a
> NIC will participate to.

Again, please drop the ICANN nomenclature -- there's too much baggage being
carried along with it.

Bill Lovell

> This is the normal international structure system/ National structures
> gather into a joint international structure of equivalent format. Each with
> its own budget. There is no objection to the RIPE and others to enter into
> an MoU over that, since it is their own structure.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> 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