On 09-Feb-99 Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
> We do agree that ISO3166 match up territories not countries,
> and that RFC1591 states correctly:
> "The IANA is not in the business of deciding
> what is and what is not a country."
> I hope we do agree that governements are in the business
> of understanding sovereignty issues -- so let's rely on their work.
> For exemple the US Government keeps on line
> two files:
> http://www.state.gov/www/regions/independent_states.html
> ("Independent States in the World")
> and
> http://www.state.gov/www/regions/dependencies.html
> ("Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereinty")
> According to that Guam is under US sovereinty, Afganistan is
> a sovereign country, the legal status of Antarctica
> remains in suspense under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959,
> ... etc.
>
> The a priori knowledge of the management and the policy rules
> of one TLD is a key issue for every kind of conflictual situation
> which may arise between any two or more stakeholders (beyond the
> domain names disputes -- think about electronic commerce or
> privacy concerns).
> May I quote Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> message
> sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> | Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 12:19:35 +1200
> | To: Daniel Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | From: Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Subject: RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
> | <snip>
> | People do not really become aware of the issues unless
> | they can empathise with the problems of the the
> | lack of security of a (much larger) investment in a website,
> | have been attacked by a TM owner, have registered a TM
> | themselves, have been treatened with deletion by a
> | registry, or threatened by an telco-ISP with phone cutoff
> | over a billing dispute re a DN.
> | And I'm not even talking about the issues on the
> | horizon. (crypto and censorship)
>
> The US White Paper which is on the basis of current process states:
> "Of course, national governments now have, and will continue to have,
> authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs."
But this is the flaw of the logic right here.
The White Paper statement indicated that they NOW HAVE this authority, and that
was quite simply not true. As such, the statement that follows it "will
continue to have" cannot be used as a policy statement, for its basis is on the
incorrect statement "now have" which is not the case, and has never been the
case, in actual terms, practice, or theory.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09-Feb-99
Time: 04:44:07
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
