Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

[Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com>]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

> Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore and or implement more reliable
> sources of inter connectivity.

I would say that in a perfect world - ICANN would of approached the
National Governments and suggested they setup their own top level domain
managers for their own top level domain.  It's a bit of a joke watching
the various attempts to take over or nationalize an existing resource that
they never have had any control over in the first place.

It's much easier to simply setup a national TLD - or several national tlds
- and then the various interested governments can develop those resources
as they deem fit to do.  Start with a clean slate and move forward.

Frankly it has never been the business of a cc tld administrator to
explore or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.  The way
this show has been run is do as you please and carry on.  Thats the nature
of how the assignments were made.

If a government is concerned about it's security and securing access to
namespace by it's own nationals - then it would be prudent for it to run
it's own national root servers and tlds.  I think this is a much better
proactive approach then begging the US Government for a scrap here and
there.

regards
joe


> Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security considerations.
>
> ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal meant to provide a stable
> and usable internet and resource for any country.  Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations
> should also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.
>
> I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards are International standards
> within a WTO or USBTA agreement.  I believe the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and
> admit to a void in ISO.
>
> Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the unreal.
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> >
> > > Dear YJ,
> > >
> > > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country" Codes.
> > >
> > > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> > > folk.
> > > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and by and through that a Country
> > > Resource.
> >
> > well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
> >
> > now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight has
> > any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a means
> > of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
> > designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there and
> > were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these people.
> > that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he pleases.
> >
> > now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
> > themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault of
> > the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the fact
> > that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
> > of their namespace but also increase their national security through the
> > operation of a south african root server network.
> >
> > the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason why
> > the south africans can't follow in the same path.
> >
> > and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
> > infrastructure - don't we?
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
>

--
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