Re: Draft New Draft

[Kilnam Chon <chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr>]

some of the cases in Asia-Pacific to enrich the discussion.

chon

On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 05:56:26PM -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 
> 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
        ^^^^^^						        ^^^^^^^
korea would be the same next month				japan

> 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?).

New Zealands is the notable case.

> 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
> > 
>