RE: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 09-Feb-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  Kent, Anthony,Eberhart, Javier and William,
>  
>  I would like to add my lowly  2ct to this discussion.
>  Rather than enshrining RFC 1591, or take parts of Jon's memo out of context
>  ,we should take a hard look at the reality of today.
>  There is no uniform picture.
>  
>  1. The text of the MoU between NTIA and ICANN, recognizes the ultimate
>  right of sovereign nations over "their" ccTLD's.  (i know, this is
>  ambiguous for some ccTLD's)

Based on a false premise however.  They were led to believe that this was the
status quo, and it was not.  So this statement really cannot be applied.

>  2. Some important nations have already aggressively asserted  control and
>  have handed regulation over to a newly created bureaucracy.

A very small number, I know of only 3, but they are sufficiently important I
grant.
  
>  3. Other governments are sitting on the fence. They allow the status quo to
>  continue, but make sure that government officials participate in
>  policymaking of the IANA delegatee in a private capacity.
>  This is actually the worst solution and, because they are not "officialy"
>  involved, can give rise to unaccountability of the worst kind.  
>  Government sanctioned unaccountability. Registration fees have the
>  unofficial status of a DN tax, but there is no parliamentary oversight.
>  Policies have the status of unofficial law.
>  I have great sympathy for the position that it is better to keep
>  incompetent, heavy handed and bureaucratic meddlers out of ccTLD
>  management, but there is a reverse side to this coin as well.
>  
>  In a democratic country, parliament is supposed to represent the people.
>  Laws provide for government oversight  to combat anti-competitive
>  monopolies.
>  If in such a country a ccTLD is run by an unaccountable clique, it is only
>  a matter of time before politicians will be called upon to challenge what
>  is going on.
>  Then, government will be forced to intervene and regulate.
>  To prevent this from happening, ccTLD managers need to take steps to
>  democratize their procedures and self-regulate by giving registrants a say
>  in their policies. 
>  
>  As for less than benevolent governments-- I do not think that it is
>  realistic to expect that ICANN will stand up to them and refuse a request
>  for transfer of authority, once they wake up to the internet. The
>  registrants, if allowed (!),  will simply flee to other TLD's.
>  
>  4. Some governments have come to a formal agreement with the ccTLD
>  delegatee. No matter what the text of this agreement currently is, it
>  recognizes the ultimate sovereignty of the nation over "its" ccTLD space.
>  Such agreements are dependent on the continued political will to abide by
>  them.  
>  
>  Eberhart wrote:
> >What the current ccTLD operators want and need is Due Process. 
>  
>  I would like to add: what the registrants want and need is Due Process.
>  They will seek it wherever they can get it.
>  --Joop--
>  http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html 

I think that legislative means are the appropriate means for a government to
regulate abuses, and not bureaucratic control.  I suggest the "bad" you are
saying will happen if abuses continue, is actually what is the proper way of
handling it, and that this matter does not belong in the DNSO or ICANN.

----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 09-Feb-99
Time: 15:23:51
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977