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

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

I can certainly see the logic of axxepting that Goverments do have
sovereign rights of control over things like a ccTLD.  After all,
ISO3166 CCodes are politically established in negotiations with the
country or territory in question, and IANA was just using them for its
own purposes without making any claims pro or con.

So, we can now see why it is critical to get more gTLDs into operation
against the possibility that that somehow Sovereign Countires will
take contol of most ccTLDs, and also work to eliminate those pesky
gTLDs, and move the Internet into the same kind of conrtol mode that
exists for access to telephonbe dialtone.

It has long been recognized (at least by me and most likely even
earlier by ITU and the telephone industry as well) that the avenue to
control of telecomunications is through control of subscriber
identifiers (e.g., phone numbers, X.400 ADMD and PRMD names, ISO3166
Country Codes and within countries X.25 addresses, and such, all of
which were controlled by Country designated agencies such as US ANSI,
or by the phone company, etc, et al.

So, it is critical that we maintin the right and privilege of haing
gTLD names that are out of the control of Sovereign Country
Governments.  

This is one reason to be very very leary of the ICANN Govt Advisory
Committee, esspecially when chaired by an Austailian Government
sponsored person, since AU is widely known to be hostile to the use of
DNS names that are not controlled by Governments.

So, before the roof caves in, we all need to be very careful to
preserve our rights to use non-ccTLD DNS names, adn we have to be
careful to avoid governments' capture of control of ICANN or the DNSO.

It is already disurbing to see the current trends in the situation.

Cheers...\Stef



>From your message Tue, 09 Feb 1999 15:27:41 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}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