Re: Draft New Draft

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Anthony,
	Your meaning of "direct government involvement" is very convenient.
You have tried to convince us all that the governments are harly, if at all
involved with their ccTLDs. My counter argument is that most are aware of
what is going on and the fact that they let most of them continue means that
those registries are not doing things that their governments don't like.
Of your list of 18, you have had another (Norway) who has said that it DOES
have government involvement, and Niue (NU) has a formal contract with the
government of Niue AFAIK. Add in Spain and you already have 6 (not counting
any of those other 13 who have some degree of relationship with their
government.
If you think that nominet runs in such a way that it doesn't care what the
government thinks, you are out of your mind... And I would dare say that the
same happens with quite a few other TLDs.
	My point: Governments have a LOT of involvement in how their TLDs
are run, and this is patent in MOST ccTLDs. This involvement can be very
direct, like having a ministry run it (like argentina), it can be by
delegating it to a commercial party they feel comfortable with (Niue), it
can be by creating a non-profit organisation that they have de-facto control
over (France), it can be by having voices/votes on the board (Canada?), it
can be by eyeing it to check if they are doing things in an acceptable way
(nominet) or by any other large number of ways.
There are VERY few ccTLDs which are run with NO contact with their
governments (Mexico maybe?).
And to try and ignore this is silly.

Your statement of 
> 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)".

is as misleading and twisted as it gets. I've already posted the original
question that was sent to INDIVIDUALS. I'm still waiting for that wave of
ccTLD admins to come out and say I've got it all wrong. Yes it is true that
I'm having problems communicating with Patrick Raimond (haven't been able to
get in touch with him for a couple of weeks now).
/cinic mode on
Maybe Patrick will be one of those jumping at me stating that ccTLDs are
really so much in favour of IATLDs
/cinic off
The original question was an outright trap. (If anyone hasn't yet seen that
message ask me privately, and I'll send it to you).

I probably mixed up what you were getting at with the registries that accept
names from anywhere.

Yours, John Broomfield.

Anthony Van Couvering wrote:
> 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
>