On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:09:12 +0200, Onno Hovers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <008901bebe79$2ce3cf00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Anthony van Couvering wrote:
>> 1. ccTLDs, their resellers, agents, and customers play a tangential role in
>> the ICANN process, restricting their concern to such actions on the part of
>> ICANN that might impact their ability to run a smooth root zone;
>
>> or
>
>> 2. ccTLDs, their resellers, agents, and customers are welcomed into the
>> ICANN process, and ccTLDs will pay attention to the broader efforts of ICANN
>> and will participate.
>
>> It appears from Ken Stubb's message and from Joe Sims', that #1 is
>> indicated. In any case there are many in the ccTLD constituency who feel
>> that ICANN ought to restrict its activities to gTLDs. If ccTLD registrars
>> aren't going to be allowed into the registrar constituency, then ICANN
>> should not expect ccTLDs to pay any attention to ICANN resolution concerning
>> registrars.
>
>> I don't think this will break any hearts among the ccTLDs.
>
>It seems to me that the ccTLDs want to have it both ways,
>no regulation from their governments and no regulation from the ICANN.
They have a good case for this.
They were delegated these TLDs without any such stupid rules. ICANN
now wants to make them subject to these rules. Unlike NSI, who had a
renewable and changing contract with the USG that would make it
subject to new rules, these is no such contract with the ccTLDs. They
have every right to expect to be able to continue under their existing
set of rules, RFC1591 as it read at the time of their delegation, and
nothing more.
There is no provision that mandates them to accept new rules on behalf
of an ICANN.
So ICANN must provide some motivation for them to voluntarily place
themselves under ICANN's rules.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
