<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] your comments
I appreciate the clarification. And you have certainly highlighted some
issues that are important to some people. The issue of cc's that act like
gTLDs is a particularly relevant issue; if a cc registry is going to
aggressively solicit name registrations from people all over the world,
shouldn't it have to meet the same minimum standards as do gTLDs? Such
things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our who
to contact when an issue arises -- stuff like this? It is one thing to
argue that a ccTLD that restricts registrations to its nationals or
residents of the country of its charter should have the "right" to do what
it wants on these points, since those adversely affected always have
recourse to the national government, local courts, etc. But when the
registry decides to take advantage of the stable global DNS to attract
registrants that, as a practical matter, do not have those protections, and
can do so only because the rest of the world is working together through
ICANN to maintain the global infrastructure that permits that behavior,
that seems to me to be a different situation altogether. As I understand
the ICANN position, there is no desire to interfere in any way with local
policy development; that should be up to the local community. But when the
registry takes actions that have global implications or effects, it should
be subject, as are all other similarly situated registries, to the global
policy development process. What I take from your post is that you want
someone else to shoulder the burdens of preserving and protecting the
global DNS that makes it possible for the ccTLDs to function, but to
basically leave you alone to do with it what you please (although maybe you
would be willing to contribute to the purely mechanical work of keeping
your database records straight). In antitrust economics, this is called
"free-riding" and is generally not considered something to be admired or
protected.
Joe Sims
DPF
<david@farrar.co To: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
m> cc: barrister@chambers.gen.nz, ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments
05/30/02 02:48
PM
On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:35:52 -0400, "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
wrote:
>Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>
> the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
> ICANN project since its inception
>
>It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
>also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
>more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
>position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
>only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
>that they don't care to follow.
This is not my understanding. the position AFAIK is that on a narrow
range of technical policy issues, ccTLDs are happy to adhere to a
global policy in the interests of making the Internet work. In fact
they all pretty much adhere to them now. Such policies may be number
of name servers, geographical diversity of name servers etc.
What ccTLDs are not keen to do is give ICANN power to impose the UDRP
(for example) on them. Or to be able to unilaterally declare that
certain ccTLDS which do not restrict registrations will in future be
treated like gTLDs.
>We might be able to agree that all parties
>could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
>parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
>individual national governments. But there is still a core issue: do the
>operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
>global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities
to
>their local Internet community?
Yes - the obligation is on narrow technical issues of
inter-operability. But no there is not an obligation to be forced to
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for example on changing all
their registry databases to conform to a standard whois specification
which is not a technical necessity but a preference of certain people.
>If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
>establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global
community.
>This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
>the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely
that
>we will make much progress.
The ccTLDs have stated they will accept ICANN policies but only in
certain pre defined areas. I do not believe they will not give carte
blanche decision making authority to ICANN, especially when ICANN has
shown itself numerous times to ignore the advice of SOs on matters
which affect them.
>From your posting and its continuing criticism
>of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress. Nevertheless, I
>look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
>closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.
I would also ask why ICANN has to be the body to establish global
ccTLD policies? WHy not a world federation of ccTLDs? Now that ICANN
has abandoned any pretence to being a representative body, why is it
more suited to decide what is good for the global internet community
compared to say such a federation of ccTLDS. At least the majority of
them allow individual registrants the ability to join and vote on
policy issues.
DPF
(PS - note once again I speak for myself not for InternetNZ in this
forum)
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|