RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I meant 'turn it into a separate, free-standing, body' (but the phrase was
perhaps ambiguous, as it might have implied continuing ICANN control,
sorry).

I am coming to think this is also the answer for IP # function which
should be separate from the DNS function and from IANA.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> What does "hive it off" mean ??
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:45 AM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: jandl@jandl.com; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> Since those aspects of ccTLD managment are handled by 'IANA', and 'IANA'
> seems to be exempt from all ICANN transparency rules, why not just hive
> it off?
> 
> (Readers wanting to know about the IANA/ICANN separation fiction are
> invited to read a series of articles on ccTLD issues that have appeared
> on www.icannwatch.org in the last few months...)
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Leah,
> > 
> > >
> > >Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why ccTLDs 
> > >should not simply be included in the root and let it go at that.
> > 
> > 
> > With which mechanism?
> > I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the 
> > operator is
> > authoritative?
> > Somebody must have the responsibility for inclusion of a new TLD,
> things do 
> > not just happen by themselves.
> > 
> > >
> > >On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > > > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> > 
> > Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root. 
> > The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new 
> > records shall be created/removed. You may consider it unfortunate, but
> 
> > ICANN has this authority, even if it acts only under adult supervision
> 
> > by USG (by USG has made it clear since the Ira Magaziner times that it
> 
> > wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating the front role to an 
> > entity acting under agreement with USG). In other words, if it is not 
> > ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner
> > (USG) considers politically unwise to act directly.
> > 
> > 
> > > > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> > > >
> > 
> > If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
> > But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder,
> 
> > and
> > would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like Registrants
> are 
> > trying to do.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> > 
> > P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative 
> > scenario
> > that you envisage for entry/exit from the root?
> > - ccTLDs "self-manage";
> > - USG acting directly;
> > - a third entity different from ICANN does it (VeriSign?)
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html