On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> > IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA
> > assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy
> > regarding gTLDs.
>
> Not true. IANA assumed that it had the power to create >NEW< gTLDs.This assumption
> was dashed twice, by the way. Draft-postel was never implemented.
> The gTLD-MoU was never implemented. I guess it really didn't have that authority,
> now did it?
Did I say that it did? I didn't say that it had any authority at all.
What I said was "IANA assumed".
> > It was very clear at all times that IANA understood
> > that it had no power over ccTLDs. Postel chose, very wisely, to adopt
> > a policy of deference to the relevant sovereign government.
>
> Again, untrue. Postel gave the right to run the ccTLD to the first person who
> applied.
And how do you know this, Milton?
> Only in cases of conflict was there any deference.
OK, I will spell out what I have written here many times before: Postel
chose, very wisely, to defer to the relevant sovereign government
_whenever there was a dispute over which server the entry in the root
zone should point to_.
> I'm sure he
would have
> used the same "common sense" deference if two people from the University of
> California or the Mitre Corporation came to him claiming to be the system
> administrator for either of those institutions' domains.
No. The point is that wherever there was a dispute and the relevant
sovereign government indicated a preference, IANA deferred to the
sovereign government.
If you know of a case where this is not true, please educate us.
> > More like, "do what you like with the gTLDs, but use common sense
> > when dealing with the ccTLDs".
> >
> > 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.
>
> Jim's insistence that there is any basis for a policy distinction between ccTLDs
> and gTLDs is a transparent canard. Read Jim's paragraph above. Now substitute the
> word "NSI" for "ccTLD registries" and a singular pronoun for the plural. Think
> about the result.
I have never at any time insisted that there is a legal basis for a
distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs, and I have not done so in this
case. What I have done is talked about practicalities and the real
world.
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.
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.
--
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____________________________________________
