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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parities,

  Thanks for this update Roberto.

  The real problems here are two fold.  1.) Why in the first place some
1 1/2 year ago didn't the ICANN legal staff, including Louis, not recognize
after so much debate back than, didn't back than that what ICANN
was and has recently required for zone file info and handling, was
never going to fly due to legal jurisdictional reasons.  2.) How can
the ICANN staff even now have the audacity to make such a requirement
upon ccTLD's with a straight face when ICANN has trouble keeping
it's own forum hardware up and running, web site accessible and
unfixed zone information on it's own DN???  To me and I am sure
many of the ccTLD's it is unimaginable to reasonably consider
seriously...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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