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

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

I don't think it's a matter of dollars vs pennies, Don.  It sound to me 
more like jurisdictional law and autonomy where the ccTLDs are 
concerned.  With registrars for the gTLDs, it would still fall under 
jurisdictional law, such as in the EU.  In a thin registry, where the 
registrar is the keeper of the information, that registrar must abide by its 
own country's law.   Can another country impose its criteria and law on 
a contracted entity if that criteria would break the law in that 
jurisdiction?  

Escrow becomes complex under those circumstances.  

Leah


On 23 Sep 2002, at 19:06, Don Brown wrote:

> Does it really matter if it's in the U.S., Romania or elsewhere? The
> only thing that really matters is the ability to recover and how to
> best achieve that goal. Sometimes we trip over dollars to pick up
> pennies . . .
> 
> 
> Monday, September 23, 2002, 6:13:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano
> <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com> wrote: RG> Good evening.
> 
> RG> Louis Touton pointed out to me, in a private message, that the
> following RG> 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).
> 
> RG> Thanks to Louis for spotting the incorrect statement.
> RG> The sentence, as written, could give the impression that it was a RG>
> requirement for the trusted third party to be in the US. RG> Formally, it
> was not. RG> The point was that in its initial formulation ICANN was the
> sole authority RG> to decide who was the trusted third party. Discussion at
> the meeting led to RG> the conclusion that, for practical reasons more than
> by design, the third RG> party was likely to be in the US. RG> Later ICANN
> accepted the principle of agreeing the third party (and RG> therefore its
> location) with the Registrar ("the requirement was watered RG> down", in my
> expression above). The matter is still under discussion, but it RG> seems
> that the principle of "agreement" will be kept. RG> Louis further quotes
> agreements with ccTLDs that accept the same principle RG> for escrow of
> Registry data, to show ICANN´s willingness to meet the other RG> party´s
> needs. I do believe that this is indeed the case, as European ccTLDs RG>
> could not accept export of confidential data outside EU because of EU law.
> 
> RG> Nevertheless, I maintain the point, which is that this affair is
> another RG> chess game, where each of the contendents is trying to gain
> some territory: RG> ICANN to force controls on ccTLDs, ccTLDs to reject
> obligations. I also RG> maintain that ICANN, being a US corporation,
> moreover under contract with RG> USG (OK, OK, MoU not contract), has a
> problem in dealing with ccTLDs, who RG> are subject to their national law,
> because there is no international treaty RG> on the matter. RG> The problem
> is not only the contractual relationship, which is already hard, RG> but
> the international political relations. RG> I bet that the matter of the
> zone files will end up before the GAC (if it RG> did not already so).
> 
> RG> Regards
> RG> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RG> _________________________________________________________________
> RG> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> 
> RG> --
> RG> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> RG> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> RG> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> RG> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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