On 15-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> ccTLDs have a more interesting conundrum. They don't want to submit
> to ICANN regulation. But on the other hand, they want ICANN to
> endorse rfc1981 to give ccTLDs some protection against their
> associated sovereignties. Of course, if I were ICANN I know how I
> would handle this :-)
Make that RFC1591.
And we may soon have an example of the dangers of this idea of government
"sovereignty" over ccTLDs.
The Australian Government is trying to get control of and revoke the ccTLDs
operated by individuals in their territories (which have ISO country codes).
This is because they take away from the monopoly control over the .AU TLD.
So the Australian Government would remove these other TLDs to avoid the
competition for the monopoly structure it supports.
There is no basis for letting the Australian Government make these decisions.
ccTLDs do not belong, and indeed never have belonged, to the governments of the
country they represent.
Remember, this is a network of private networks, and that this whole process
has been a move AWAY from government management of these resources.
And this does NOTHING to take away the powers of governments to LEGISLATE by
their normal means laws that will affect Registry operations. But by and
large, such legislative processes include checks and balances that keep such
decisions from being made in a bureaucratic and arbitrary fashion, and that
such decisions are made with some public accountability.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15-Jan-99
Time: 14:10:57
----------------------------------
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
