Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Doctor,

This dang post is so good it requires response and dignity.  I put on my stupid
reading glasses and reread it.
May I respond in kind and follow your thoughts below?

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> > And if all that is a contradictory mess - we look to the course and conduct
> > between the parties
>
> Very good.  Now, take a hypothetical:
>
> Let's say that Country X does not control the corresponding ccTLD in a zone
> file under the control of a private party who owns a root server not located
> in Country X.  Let's say that Country X never has had control of that ccTLD.
> As between Country X and the root server operator, the course of dealing and
> conduct of the parties is pretty well established - i.e. the ccTLD does not
> belong to Country X.
>

Darn conundrum. When this "hypothetical" occurs ( .AU ) then we see the results.
It is called redelegation.
Now should a country be so ignorant as to put all their eggs in one basket and
not at least dualise like Leah offers, Jim, Joe and Jeff recommend then they
suffer from their own ignorance.

>
> > would seem that applying these principals would lead us to the conclusion,
> barring
> > well based legal argument to the contrary, that these are matters of
> sovereignty.
>
> Precisely.  Country X is sovereign over all within its territorial control.
> The root server is not located there, nor is the root server operator, nor is
> the zone file.  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?
>

A group I work with is dividing the root structure in order to provide security
and integrity and marketability for that country.  If we have learned one thing
over the past five years it is that Lawyers, Judges or technicians cannot run
what we call the Internet.  It requires strategists with knowledge in all areas.
The DOC is a failure and ICANN is corrupt.

>
> Oh, you want Country A, the home country of the root server operator, to
> compel him/her, at gunpoint if necessary, to make a change in the zone file.
> Do I have this correct?  And if the root server operator refuses to obey,
> what sort of punishment do you propose Country A should visit upon him/her?
>
> And Country A should do this.... why?
>

A combination of finance, economies of scale, politics and law and national
security and custom and practice and practicality leading to security,
reliability and access feed into this equation.  Perhaps they should hire Joe,
Jim Jeff or Leah.  Peter was fond of this idea for backup redundancy.

>
> > If you have any of the foregoing that is contrary, I would be most
> interested.
> > It is poor to argue that a void of law leads to a void of rights.
>
> And it is pretty poor to argue that countries all over the world gain an
> ownership interest in data entries in the memory of my computer.

There is no right a proper excuse for any NIC to farm out databases. Period end
of story.
I am furious with the violations of privacy in this regard.  The DOC and US
congress is most horrible in this matter - but we forgive them for they know not
what they do.

Eric

--
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