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

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

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@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