RE: Draft New Draft

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

I TOTALLY agree with Mr Lockett's statement below, and it is what I have been
saying for some time.  The soveriegn language as written now would permit
bureaucratic control, without legislative action.

This is what is unacceptable to me.  I am NOT anti-government (as some have
said) and I am not advocating that ccTLD delegations are issues of "property"
of the registry at the expense of the government's soveriegn powers. 

What I am saying is that no statement of sovereignty is necessary, because each
country, by its very nature, as the ability to enact legislation and rules to
govern these matters within their borders.

The only purpose inclusion of this language would serve would be to grant the
ability of a bureaucratic agency or agent of the government to make crass, and
non-reviewable decisions that impact the operations of these TLDs, without any
recourse whatsoever.


On 11-Feb-99 Lockett, Nick wrote:
>       Kent Crispin [kent@songbird.com] wrote : 
>       > The semantics of the "sovereignty" claim is that, in the final
>  analysis, the "owner" of the country code is the country that has
>       > authority over it, as designated by ISO.  
>  
>       IMHO Absolutely NOT! 
>       I think you are confusing sovereign ownership with the ability of
>  the sovereign to exercise sovereign power . AIUI ISO designation merely
>  recognises the ability of the designated sovereign state to exercise
>  sovereign power over the ISO if necessary and is an issue of established
>  international comity.
>       The owner of the country code is the designated registrar. The
>  country that has authority over it, as designated by ISO would only be able
>  to exercise any authority by statutory legislation. The danger of talking
>  about fundamental "property right" of the sovereign is that it is a legal
>  fiction. Technically the sovereign owns our houses - however that doesn't
>  mean the Gov't can seize them without statutory authority - (see Compulsory
>  Purchase Act) - and such use would entitle compensation to be given.
>  
>       Intrinsically this "right" doesn't translate to anything including
>  the fundamental ownership of the record in the root zone - that rests with
>  Nominet for the UK. Again, any problems over monopoly or which threatened
>  the country would result in sovereign power being exercised to seize control
>  and ownership. 
>  
>  Nick Lockett
>  Counsel
>  (This is  statement of personal opinion and should not necessarily be
>  attributed to Sidley & Austin, 
>  International Solicitors,  London Office - no liability accepted for advice
>  given in this manner)

----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 11-Feb-99
Time: 04:01:34
----------------------------------
"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