Jim,
At the end of the posing you said, "
>This isn't an issue that can be settled by supposedly logical arguments.
>Many issues can only be settled by diplomacy or, failing that, force.
>This is one of them."
What do you mean by "force"?
Scott Hillstrom
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 January 1999 05:38
Subject: [ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
>On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> Jim and Anthony:
>> Both of you seem to have missed the essential point.
>
>> Which is, that the current administrators of *both* ccTLDs *and* gTLDs
>> have what must be treated as a kind of property right in their
>> registries, and that whatever ICANN does cannot overturn or abrogate
>> those rights without creating problems. This is true REGARDLESS of
>> whether the registry is a ccTLD or a gTLD. This is the point you keep
>> evading, or perhaps do not understand. Everything you repeatedly say
about
>> the lack of wisdom in fooling with a ccTLD administration applies
>> equally well to a gTLD or to a ccTLD run by a commercial entity and
>> marketing itself like a gTLD. There is no difference.
>
>Much of this dialog has the same quality as an attempt to explain the
>difference between red and blue to someone who is color blind.
>
>If the US government clamps down on NSI, no one anywhere else in the
>world is going to give a damn. They will shrug their shoulders and say
>"Well, it's a US corporation operating in the USA. The Americans will
>do whatever they like."
>
>But if ICANN attempts anything similar regarding, say, the .DE registry,
>there will be hell to pay.
>
>I am not evading your arguments about how really and truly this is a
>discussion about property rights. I just think your arguments are
>nonsense and betray a fundamental lack of understanding: Milton, there
>is a world outside the United States.
>
>> > > > More like, "do what you like with the gTLDs, but use common sense
>> > > > when dealing with the ccTLDs".
>>
>> We've already demonstrated, and you've been forced to concede, that IANA
could not and
>> did not "do what it liked" with gTLDs.
>
>You misconstrued something that I said. I didn't concede anything. I
said,
>in reasonably polite terms, that you should take greater care in reading
>what people write.
>
>> > > > Were ICANN to attempt to assert authority over the ccTLD
registries,
>> > > > the minimal result would be that they would quietly ignore ICANN's
>> > > > "regulations". A more likely result is an international uproar and
>> > > > the elimination of ICANN.
>>
>> I note that you also failed to answer my argument that the exact same
statement could be
>> made about the gTLDs.
>
>Sorry. The reality is that you and I are talking at different levels.
>You talk in terms of abstractions. I talk in terms of practical reality.
>
>> > It may be that under some readings of California or US law ICANN or
>> > IANA or the US government could drop .FR from the root zone or transfer
>> > .UK to Milton Mueller's garage registry. The practical effect of
either
>> > of this would be disasterous, so no one in their right mind is going to
>> > do it.
>
>> Same goes for .com. Do you get the point yet? I am getting tired of
repeating it. ICANN
>> does not have arbitrary power over ccTLD registries, and it does not have
arbitrary
>> power over gTLD registries.
>
>Sorry, what goes for .com? Do you think that anyone outside the US would
>feel some terrible angst if the US government took .com/net/org from NSI
>and transferred it to, say, CORE? Well, if so, think again. There are a
>lot of interests in Europe that would support this.
>
>> > This is what matters here. Not your reading of the law or mine or
>> > Esther Dyson's. What matters is the very practical fact that for a
>> > California corporation to attempt to overrule the wishes of a sovereign
>> > state in this matter would result in an international uproar and at
>> > minimum the elimination of that California corporation as a force for
>> > mischief.
>
>> This requires some clarification. ccTLD registries are not sovereign
states. The
>> majority of true sovereigns--Presidents, heads of legislatures, etc.--are
not even aware
>> of who in their territory runs the ccTLD. ccTLD registries are businesses
or
>> organizations who happened to have been granted the right to run one of
the TLDs.
>
>It simply requires your paying attention to what people write before you
>rush off to reply. I didn't say that ccTLD registries are sovereign
>states. The rest of your strange arguments, like presidents and prime
>ministers being "true sovereigns", doesn't merit a reply.
>
>> But. Just to make it abundantly clear, I am not arguing that ICANN or
anyone else has
>> the right to dictate their policies, throw them out of the root, or any
other such
>> nonsense. I am making the simple--but very important--point that there is
no distinction
>> in this regard between ccTLDs and gTLDs.
>
>You are simply wrong.
>
>> I am insisting on this point because I think the ccTLD-gTLD canard is a
sneaky way for
>> certain people to argue that proprietary registries are BAAAADD when they
are called
>> "gTLDs" but UNTOUCHABLE when they are called "ccTLDs." In both cases,
they are, in fact,
>> proprietary registries. I think the false and logically indefensible
distinction between
>> the two will lead to bad policy, in a variety of ways.
>
>Whether you like it or not (and have you looked up the word "canard" in
>the dictionary?) the ccTLD / gTLD distinction is here to stay. Foreign
>(ie, non-US) countries are not going to tolerate any attempt by the US
>government or ICANN to attempt to regulate the ccTLDs.
>
>This isn't an issue that can be settled by supposedly logical arguments.
>Many issues can only be settled by diplomacy or, failing that, force.
>This is one of them.
>
>--
>Jim Dixon Managing Director
>VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Member of Council Telecommunications Director
>Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
>http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
>tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>___END____________________________________________
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
