Re: [wg-review] [Charters] Has everyone read the ICANN Name.Space

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> "Why are you insisting that Gene defend NameSpace? He has nothing to 
> do with
> them."


I'm not asking him to defend them, just to provide an account of where 
they may be coming up with such ideas.  The thrust of my question is to 
illuminate the fact that the policies outlined contain language which 
runs contrary to the apparent purposes of ICANN.  Why would a serious 
candidate for prospective TLD recognition include such concepts in their 
proposal?  Could it be that they ultimately did not care whether or not 
ICANN would grant them status?  If so, how many others are laying the 
goundwork for extra-ICANN Rootzones?  The "official" by-line seems to be 
that only an ICANN sponsored Root is viable.  However, it appears as if 
other people (who are technically proficient and quite motivated) are 
preparing the way for a different framework of reference.  Dare I say 
that such groups are finding not altogether unsympathetic ears among 
policy makers and government officials worldwide?  
Roeland Meyer wrote:

> "Considering, that ICANN is specifically a California Corporation. No 
> court
> in Australia has authority to break-up a CA corp, doing lawful 
> business, in
> California. The whole thing is a red herring."



Actually, the ACCC filing is news to me and is not at the heart of my 
question.  What I am specifically referring to is the situation 
(prognostication?) outlined by Jonathan Zittrain in his 1999 "Report to 
Congress"( 
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/14_3/Zittrain/html/text.html 
)  It seems to me that the Australian ACCC issue is only the tip of an 
iceberg which could sink the Titanic ICANN.  Where do we go from there, 
I wonder?
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.