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____________________________________________
