[ga] Solemn public question to Peter de Blanc
we are all concerned by the IP lobby policy. Concerned but not doing muach.
The result is that the Internet is going to be blocked into absurd,
contradictory and complex situations that a few reasonable moves by some of
us could avoid. In particular by ccTLDs.
this mail is to you as the elected, acknowledged, respected and undisputed
Chair of the ccTLDs organizations.
Today the new ".pe" ccTLD Manager is ... the Constitutional President of
the Peruvian Republic and the ".pe" registry the Peruvian TM and IP
Administration. To my knowledge this is - with Andorra - the second country
in the world to decide that the color of the sky is green.
This is in direct violation with the spirit of the RFC 1591
In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights to a
particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or
responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both
parties. The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating anyone
This rises a question to you, so we know what we are to do.
Peter, is your WWccTLD Alliance purely a registry association, whatever the
registry management, or is it a ccTLD Manager association i.e. of
organisations with legitimacy from and duties to their National Internet
To get a simple and clear response what are the functions you include or
not in the ccTLD Manager mission as a trustee of the National Internet
Community (please just cross the appropriate responses):
1. [ ] registry of the ISO 3166 TLD
2. [ ] registry for other national, local, etc TLDs
3. [ ] IP addresing delivery and management
4. [ ] DNS servers management
5. [ ] information of the National Internet Community, Gov. and national
6. [ ] animation of the National Internet Community
7. [ ] local defense of the National Internet Community
8. [ ] organization/provision of additional services to the National
9. [ ] organization/provision of additional national services to the
foreign users and communities
10.[ ] local defense of the Global Internet Community
11.[ ] international representation of the National Internet Community
12.[ ] common management of the Internet infrastructure as an associated
Member of the ICANN
Peter, Elisabeth, Oscar, Peter, Jean-Yves, Nigel, etc... if you do not
intend to protect us but only to lock yourself into the ccSO getho until
you die of grand age and lack of users, we have to organize ourself to
represent the Internet Users and our National Communities. Otherwise no
dialog will be made possible with the "Golden Block" (GIP, Staff, NSI, DoC,
NSA). Your "ccTLD" business will either be repatriated to the US or
becoming a public service used by only a few, to the benefit of the global
US registries. And we will reach a point where the user consensus which
makes the Internet will fade/blow away.
Nicknaming he iCANN "AmerICANN" is not a joke. It just recalls an
increasing unbalance and instability (the US DN and TLD are very
technically poor as we see it through Cochetti's letter and disagreements
over ".us" RFP).
Unbalance means further unstability and we all hate that.
No one wants what one of us was fearing yesterday: that a European
Representatives team starts proposing (irt ".kid" Act, Peruvian Resolucion
Suprema, Chinese position) a European legislation to protect European
Internet Industry interests against the AmerICANN's positions.
Time has come to think about network stability rather than about posting
limits and "current position" describing pertual policies about unique
Before we are commited to your "nuclear" arsenal.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html