Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Good evening.

Louis Touton pointed out to me, in a private message, that the following 
paragraph of my previous message was incorrect.

>
>The subject of escrow has been brought up by a different post. That reminds 
>me the initial meeting with the 5 .com testbed registrars, in Washington 
>DC, when Louis Touton announced that one of the conditions was escrow of 
>data to ICANN or other trusted third party *in the US*. Two Registrars were 
>vehemently opposed, and also Melbourne IT was not happy. After much 
>discussion the requirement was watered down (in fact, it is still under 
>discussion).

Thanks to Louis for spotting the incorrect statement.
The sentence, as written, could give the impression that it was a 
requirement for the trusted third party to be in the US.
Formally, it was not.
The point was that in its initial formulation ICANN was the sole authority 
to decide who was the trusted third party. Discussion at the meeting led to 
the conclusion that, for practical reasons more than by design, the third 
party was likely to be in the US.
Later ICANN accepted the principle of agreeing the third party (and 
therefore its location) with the Registrar ("the requirement was watered 
down", in my expression above). The matter is still under discussion, but it 
seems that the principle of "agreement" will be kept.
Louis further quotes agreements with ccTLDs that accept the same principle 
for escrow of Registry data, to show ICANN´s willingness to meet the other 
party´s needs. I do believe that this is indeed the case, as European ccTLDs 
could not accept export of confidential data outside EU because of EU law.

Nevertheless, I maintain the point, which is that this affair is another 
chess game, where each of the contendents is trying to gain some territory: 
ICANN to force controls on ccTLDs, ccTLDs to reject obligations. I also 
maintain that ICANN, being a US corporation, moreover under contract with 
USG (OK, OK, MoU not contract), has a problem in dealing with ccTLDs, who 
are subject to their national law, because there is no international treaty 
on the matter.
The problem is not only the contractual relationship, which is already hard, 
but the international political relations.
I bet that the matter of the zone files will end up before the GAC (if it 
did not already so).

Regards
Roberto




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--
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