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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@linux.lisse.na>]

In message <2282.918616522@nma.com>, Einar Stefferud writes:
> I can certainly see the logic of axxepting that Goverments do have
> sovereign rights of control over things like a ccTLD.  

I can not.

> 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.

Exactly. So why fix it?

> 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.

No, we do not need to get more gTLDs into operation in order to
counter this.

We need to protect the ccTLDs and gTLDs. And we may (or may not, I
don't particularily care either way) establish more TLDs.

> 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.  

So, it is critical that we maintin the right and privilege of haing
ccTLD names that are out of the control of their respective Sovereign
Country Governments. Never mind that they are involved as stakeholders.


> 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.

I can not agree more.

> 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.

So, before the roof caves in, we all need to be very careful to
preserve our rights to use TLD DNS names, and 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.

Agreed.

> >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.

Since when is the NTIA in the buisiness to define countries?

And if you look at the details, they qualified it anyway.


> }>  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.

Indeed.

> }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.

I still don't agree with the rights of governments to regulate this,
but if they do legislation is the way to go. 


el