Re: [ga] Re: ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Peter and Joe, I am truly puzzled by this lack of understanding of 
what the Internet is or could/will be ..  Peter, did you think there are 
thousands ways to consider a name associated with an IP, not only the 
sterile one the  ccTLDs have copied from NetSol? Joe did you ever tried to 
understand how the DNS works and the absolute lack of need of a root server 
system if the user station are smart enough - what it could/should/will 
soon be or already are. May I remind you that I do not use your root server 
system for two years now!  And many we are. Not to be a pirate and go 
alt.roots but for stability, security, speed and protection. What Richard 
Clarke is probably going to propose for Govnet if he does his job 
correctly, and why would he not do it correctly?

Also, .. Joe, reinventing the history the way you do, does not really help: 
ARPANET peole inherited the .ARPA part of the name space and used - as all 
the others - the roots into the other names spaces we gave to them. That 
these other networks did not keep using their name space and switched to 
X.121 does not  change anything to the principles you call upon. ccTLDs 
were created to interconnect local networks (a TLD is a virtual network 
name) with the ARPA virtual network (.arpa). The French system (Cyclades 
was older and gave many features to the ARPA, including subsidies. This is 
not a master slave system and hisgtory. It is a give and share one. Please 
reread the RFC 883. Or listen to those who did it ...

When you link New-York to London by Great Western, canoe or Concord you do 
not delegate the UK to the Queen!!

Each ccTLD is an island. And each user is an island. And this is what is 
turely interesting, because it makes your job to serve them - or to lead 
thelm - if you are good. Anyway this is the way itis and this is the way it 
will circumvent all your effortto claim it should be otherwise :-) and why 
we can support your refform: it wants to rule a world which does not exist. 
So there is no real harm to that Grand-dadyKarten, except its cost.
jfc

On 16:19 03/06/02, Joe Sims said:
>This is a pretty good illustration of the perception gulf we are dealing
>with.  Hello! -- ICANN was created because individual national governments
>cannot effectively deal with the global issues created by global character
>of the Internet and the DNS.  Notice that to Peter, the only global issue
>is interconnection, and things like cc's that act like g's, escrow, dispute
>resolution, whois -- these are all up to the "local internet community."
>So, if 240 LIC's decide on 240 different policies, that is not only OK, but
>the way it should be, in the World According to Peter.
>
>The GAC principles are highly contentious and in my view and others just
>plain wrong in their declaration that the internet naming system is a
>public
>resource. How does the USG regard that claim, for example?
>
>On this point, I suggest you read the contract between the USG and its
>contractor, which states that it shall comply with the GAC Principles and
>ICANN policies.  And the last time I looked, the USG was part of the GAC
>that adopted those principles?  Was NZ?
>
> >Such
> >things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
> >resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
> >cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our
>who
> >to contact when an issue arises  -- stuff like this?
>
>No. These things, in a cctld, have nothing to do with ICANN. These are
>issues for the LIC, and
>because they are in the main subject to clear and identifiable national
>law,
>there is an available remedy for any problem which a registrant might
>encounter. How presumptuous to think that ICANN should or could play any
>role in this. Its not ICANN's job to protect the people of a cctld from
>failure of its registry. Its simply absurd to suggest that its ICANN role
>to
>provide a dispute resolution process, not the national legal system.
>And if there's a gap in the national laws, there are national remedies.
>
>Cybersquatting in a cctld cannot have anything at all to do with ICANN,
>whose mission is technical management of names and numbers, not to protect
>intellectual property rights.
>
>Denying the existence of the real world will not make it go away.  Read the
>White Paper, and the MOU, and then tell me again that ICANN has no policy
>role outside of technical management of names and numbers.  I understand
>you wish it were not true, but it is.  I suggest that, if you don't like
>it, you seek to persuade your national governmental representative to
>advocate for a different way to deal with the global issues that you say
>ICANN has no role in, since they will not be overcome by wishes and hopes.
>Perhaps you would prefer that these issues be dealt with by some form of
>intergovernmental organization, where I suppose you could assert again (but
>with many fewer people listening) that these issues are solely the purview
>of the LIC.  As someone that seems to have some understanding of
>international legal principles, you will appreciate that even local acts
>that have extra-local effects frequently create jurisdiction outside local
>boundaries.
>
>The cctlds are not equivalent to the gtlds. Regulations which ICANN  passes
>as the LIC for the g-space are nothing to do with the laws and policies
>each
>cctld develops by its own processes.
>
>Until we get this clear, the real prospects where there can be discussions
>about crossover cannot begin. I for one, see much advantage in a place
>where
>those problems that have been solved in the g-space can be brought to the
>collective attention of the ccTLDs, who may well adopt similar or
>complementary policies (and vice versa).  An existing example is the
>adoption by several
>countries of UDRP as the local DRP. I see the ccSO as the place where the
>cc's will meet, and it should be to the ccSO that proposals for "crossover"
>policies can be debated.
>
>But step one is for you and ICANN to accept that the cctlds do not operate
>under a licence from ICANN. They operate under a duty to their LIC.
>
>And exactly where did the cc administrator's get their delegation?  Was it
>the DNS version of the Immaculate Conception?  If I remember my history,
>the cc delegations came from the IANA, and they brought with them
>obligations to the global DNS and the LIC.  Reinventing history does not
>move the ball forward.  The issue under discussion is what is the
>appropriate allocation of policy responsibilities.  This is neither a
>matter of high policy nor or high politics; it is a purely pragmatic
>question of what policy authority is necessary or useful, where should the
>policy development process be located, and how should policies adopted be
>implemented.   If you believe, for example, that it is not desirable that
>those ccTLDs that act like gTLDs should have to comply with some or all of
>the policies that apply to gTLDs, say so and explain why.  But don't simply
>assert that it is an irrelevant question because  a ccTLD is not a gTLD,
>which is neither persuasive nor productive.  If you believe that there is
>no legitimate global interest in every TLD having escrow or dispute
>resolution policies or whois databases that meet some minimal global
>standard, say so and explain why.  But don't try to avoid the debate by
>saying that the question is illegitimate.  When you want to debate the
>merits, I'm ready.  If you want to simply proclaim that each ccTLD is an
>island, which demands connectivity to the authoritative root but has no
>global responsibilities, go ahead, but don't be surprised if many don't
>find that discussion very interesting.