Sorry, I realize this topic has been dormant for a couple of weeks but I'm still a little unsure of ICANN's position. Alan wrote: <<(although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business).>> Acording to Kim it seems it would be. It has always been my understanding that soverignty trumps all in the ccTLD world, but Kim has been laying out a strucutre that has ICANN and the Internet community have the real say. If this is the case, does ICANN handle abuse issues for ccTLDs? If the answer is "no" then there are no responsibilities along with the rights and that is a problem. Evan has pointed out that "If there is a dispute between community and government, ICANN has ABSOLUTELTY NO business getting in the middle." but Kim has suggested otherwise. I'd like to know if Kim's statements are just his opinion or ICANN policy, and what the official ICANN policy is to ccTLD governance. This needs to be clarified. Also, I'm still deeply troubled by the fact that Kim is saying that ccTLD control comes from the "Internet community", of which many on this thread are suspicious of. The fact that Kim is citing statements no one can read as the basis for policy is, to be quite frank, creepy. Maybe we can discuss this on today's call. ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Tentative Presentations: Global Cyber Security Expo http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, October 06, 2009 1:09 pm To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Evan had earlier said that there was little support on this list for the current collaborative way of working. I was just about to speak up and say that I, for one, support what has been happening. But Antony said it far better, and with more direct knowledge, that I could have. Going into this discussion, I had a fair amount of knowledge, both direct and indirect, of how the process works when there is a "difference of opinion". And I learned more from Kim and Antony's early posts here. The only complaint that I have heard about the process (in the real world, not on this list) is that it can take a LONG time, not that it was not fair or that the outcomes were inappropriate. Yes, there may be glitches along the way. And if the .MD operator says on their home page that only their invoices should be honoured and then immediately redirects any registration requests to a US company, perhaps someone should make sure that this is intentional and not a hijacking (although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business). Back to the original discussion, having the authority for a ccTLD unilaterally changed on what might be the potentially knee-jerk reaction of a government is potentially VERY harmful to the "operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet" - ICANN's Core Value # 1. Just try to imagine how all of the second level domains (and their associated information) that are currently operating on the ccTLD get migrated to the new authority. I find it hard to imagine that uses within the country or the world would be well served by the authority for a ccTLD being transferred in a disruptive manner. And transfer in a non-disruptive manner requires at least some measure of cooperation. So ICANN's role is not to act as a political arbitrator within sovereign nations. But its role IS is to try to ensure that ccTLDs operate with stability and predictability. To date, it has a pretty good track record of doing this. Although a review and possible change in the process is welcome, I should be done based on careful understanding of the overall environment. Alan At 06/10/2009 12:00 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Over the last ten years, governments and private enterprise have come together to make workable arrangements on how to manage their ccTLDs. This has been a long and sometimes difficult path, and yet the ccTLD area, once one of the most contentious in ICANN, is now largely quiescent and most people are happy.
Your view of government control is not supported by the U.S. government, nor by any European government that I know of, nor indeed of any government that I've had the pleasure of working with. If you look at the GAC principles, which were composed by the governments of the world, they speak of a tripartite understanding between ccTLD operators, ICANN, and governments. The most extreme authoritarian dictator has not called for the level of totalitarian control that you seem to espouse.
NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------