RE: Draft New Draft

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

John Charles Broomfield wrote,
> In the past few days I have battled with you on three blanket subjects
> which you launched as a given, and I threw a few questions about them
> which at least prove that it's not as clear cut as you said.
>
> -You said that only 2 out of the top 20 ccTLDs had any relationship with
> their governments, meaning that government involvement in ccTLDs
> is very minor.
> I looked up a bunch of "major" ccTLDs and I think it was only Mexico that
> had NO relationship with the government.

I suppose it's easy enough to say I'm a liar if you have me say what I
didn't say.  What I said was this:

> Kent, you talk about these relationships, but I just don't know of very
many.
> Which of the many ccTLDs that have relations with sovereign governments
> are you talking about?  If you mean that governments are aware of their
> existence, then I suppose that's a relationship, and you are correct.
> If you mean that there is any formal or contractual relationship,
> I believe you are gravely mistaken.  Would you care to give some examples?
> Of domains with more than 15,000 names in them (the top 20), I can think
of
> only two.

I *didn't* say that the top 20 ccTLDs (or indeed any) had no relationship
with governments.  I said that they had no formal or contractual
relationship with governments.  I hope and expect that they have some
liaison with governments, as with ISPs and other involved parties.  However,
since you bring it up, here are the top 18 domains by number of
registrations (as per domainstats.com), and who runs them, and whether they
are government-run or private.  (*Note: private doesn't mean they don't talk
to the government.  It means that they make decisions independently of
government directives.)

1.  .de   318,814 - DENIC - private consortium of ISPs
2.  .uk   194,686 - Nominet - private not-for-profit
3.  .au    75,084 - AUNIC - private, subdomains delegated to other private
individuals
4.  .dk    74,519 - DKNIC/FIL - private consortium of ISPs
5.  .se    54,844 - NIC-SE - From their FAQ - "The government has no power
and no jurisdiction over the domain name policy in Sweden."
6.  .br    59,628 - FAPESP - not sure.  I've written to Demi Getschko to
find out.
7.  .ch    56,814 - SWITCH - autonomous foundation with (decreasing)
subsidies by govt.
8.  .ar    56,723 - Department of Argentine government
9.  .nl    56,382 - SIDN - Private membership Foundation of ISPs and other
interests
10. .jp    51,247 - JPNIC - Private membership organization of academic and
commercial interests
11. .it    41,349 - IT-NIC - Under authority of Italian Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications
12. .at    31,478 - NIC.AT - private consortium of ISPs
13. .fr    29,391 - INRIA/AFNIC - Academic network/ISP affiliation, beholden
to gov't
14. .za    28,613 - Uniforum - Private not-for-profit
15. .nz    26,928 - Domainz - Private not-for-profit established by ISOC New
Zealand
16. .nu    23,780 - Internet Users Society of Niue - private
17. .no    20,990 - Uninett - Academic Network, steering committee of
university personnel only
18. .tw    18,708 - TWNIC - From their FAQ - "TWNIC members are from
non-profit societies, Internet Service Providers, commercial companies,
governments, universities, and research organizations. There are totally 47
members till now."

That looks to me like France, Argentina, and Italy are the only ones with
direct government involvement (possibly Brazil).  Sorry, that's 3 not 2, I
miscounted.  But it looks to me like you make accusations before you have
facts.

>
> -You came out in defence of the iaTLD and of its backing by 73 ccTLDs. I
> pointed out that this backing was not as clear as it may seem.

It is just as clear as it ever was, and you have no evidence to the
contrary.  ccTLDs were asked if they thought ICANN should put the following
phrase in its bylaws:

"The ICANN agrees to continue to use RFC 1591 for any and all actions it
takes, or any role it assumes, with regard to the two-letter ISO 3166 TLDs
commonly known as country code TLDs (ccTLDs)".

73 responded that yes indeed they agreed, there is nothing unclear about it.
If you and the admin contact for .GP can't agree about what you think, that
is not the fault of the IATLD.  I've told you before, if the admin contact
for .GP writes to me to let me know he's changed his mind (for whatever
reason), I'll remove .GP from the list.

>
> -You gave a listing of 5 ccTLDs in a way that seemed to imply
> that they were
> private for-profit systems, and that you had another sixty-something like
> them. It was clear that those listed were not as clear-cut for-profit
> companies as you made out.

If you wish to make (another) willful misinterpretation of what I wrote, I
can't stop you.  But since someone else on the list already pointed out that
you misinterpreted this "listing", your insistence on it here indicates that
you don't really care about the substance of the matter, you're simply
trying to score points.  For the record, now, I can tell you now that I
didn't mean to imply that the domains I listed were for-profit, rather I
wished to point out that they accepted registrations from anyone regardless
of the registrant's residence.   Will that end it, or do I have to quote the
entire thing and show you why I think that what I wrote means what I
intended it to mean?

> When you try to back your arguments of government exclusion (based on the
> "fact" that they are not in general aware/involved anyway),

Again, I never said that at all, although perhaps you wish I had said it.
See above.  Secondly, I have never argued for exclusion of governments.  My
position, and it has been consistent, is that they should not be the *only*,
or even necessarily the primary, voice -- which, to my mind, is exactly what
"sovereignty" implies.  ISPs, users, registrars and others who have helped
the domain to grow should have a voice, and that voice is not necessarily
best measured or represented through a government.  If you feel differently,
why are you forming a not-for-profit for .MQ and .GP?  Why instead aren't
you talking to INRIA/AFNIC about a handover of .GP and .MQ to their
administration?  Elisabeth Porteneuve reads this list, I would be surprised
if she weren't eager to assist.

> about
> how good it
> is for registries to be for profit (because so many of them are),

Never said that either.  Are you perhaps having an argument with someone
else -- someone in your head, for instance?  I couldn't give a belch in the
wind whether ccTLD registries are for-profit or not-for-profit.

> and that
> there is wide support by many ccTLDs of these proposals (because of the
> iaTLD)

Again, for the record, by no means are all of IATLD's members for-profit
organizations.  .NA, for instance, is vehemently a volunteer organization,
and charges nothing.  I don't have access to the books of .MX, .LA, and .DO,
but I do know that they are not entrepreneurial ventures.  Neither do all of
IATLD's members allow registrations from outside their territories -- .NA,
.LA, and .TT, for example.  The only thing that IATLD members have in common
is that they are from developing areas of the world.  The same thing happens
to be true of the ccTLD's that supported our position on RFC 1591, though we
didn't plan it that way.

, then it stats to look to me as if there are unpleasant things
> happening. If your arguments can't stand up on their own merits
> and need to
> be backed by not-quite-as-they-seem "facts", then maybe it's because they
> CAN'T stand up on their own merit. Dunno.

Maybe you should do your homework before you put words in other people's
mouths, and then accuse them of lying.  It's sloppy, and it's ugly.

Antony