[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ecdiscuss] Re: [open-eu] who will run .eu?
it seems that you forgot about what democracy is about: the right for the
people to correct the errors of the people. Whoever are the people. That EU
does not give the ".eu" management to the European ccTLDs, while
considering to oblige them to sign an ICANN contract, is illogic.
Dear Olivier, please remember RFC 920. Registrants are people administered
by IANA (NIC) Registry by Jon Postel, the authority administrating the
gTLDs (TLDs under NIC administration).
The NIC(IANA) is only a "registrar" for the others (ccTLDs and RFC 921
"other systems"). The NIC (IANA) only registers their names in its servers
to permit them to be used, but it cannot create them. This is because TLDs
are "interoperable packet switch networks" (what fit the main legal
definition of the Internet, and the many others I recently quoted which are
ostly technologhy independant and never namespace related).
In the specific NIC model (unfortunitately duplicated by most local NICs by
lack of understanding of their global role, the Registrant is the budgetary
authority. The other Whois functions are purely administrative. Under that
model when designed, no domain name could be transfered and there was no
commercial nor IP related interferences.
Progressively a commercial element came into it, interoperability became
continuity, TLDs became virtual networks and sources of revenues, ccTLD did
not retain their peer level with IANA and accepted the error of the ICANN
creation. All this problem is rooted in the lack of NIC Best Practices in
RFC 920 and 1591. This is actually the whole ICANN, ccTLDs and .eu issue.
IETF never wanted to be involved in real operations and in international
telecom reality. Recently some mails on the IETF shown they are even proud
of this. Now it is to ICANN, GAC and to disnabled @large to try to sort out
a complexity borned from so many different copies of the gTLD Registry
model - instead of a common understanding of the TLD Manager's role and of
its full authority on its registry activity and propositions.
You will note that while the TLD Manager's role is (still) respected for
ccTLDs, the gTLD are only contracted as Registries (in full conformance
with RFC 920: the system has not changed for 18 years, what probably means
it is a good system).
The auto limitation of most of the ccTLDs to their Registry's role leads
ICANN to consider them as such. All this is interrelated. The Internet will
run smoothly the day the everyone accepts it is a distributed network (a
crowd) instead of a centralized network under ICANN dependance (a
federation) or even a decentralized ccTLD network (a confederation) under
ICANN control. And that this crowd may form different groups, including
LICs, flocking around their NIC.
ICANN tries to solve the issue in removing the problem (the LIC, through
local @large, which are the ccTLD legitimacy). This results from a local
NICs abdication into some regional or worldwide gTLDs and translates into
their common use of the word "ccTLD" - ie the registry part - instead of
"local NICs" and in many of them being sold by VRSN. That absurd
unifomization around an absurd "domain name" market is not what the users
want, and demand when they learn that this is not nuilt-in but imposed-on.
The main issue today is that the legal "47 USC 230 (f)(1)" definition has
been entered in 1996 for content protection (at that time to protect kids
against pornography) and the proposed "singsing" Whois Bill can only
enforce that understanding of the Internet as a continuum under Congress
regulation, due to the main worldwide motivation (defense of the copyrights
on a worldwide basis, under the anti-terrorism alibi).
On 13:54 14/08/02, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:35:49PM +0200,
Patrick <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> > it should be up to the european union to run their own tld. the
> > organizations who are trying to run this show should only be offered the
> > opportunity to provide the European Union with technical assistance and
> > nothing else. In the best case senerio the EU should run it's own show.
> > I'm sure they have the technical competence to do it on their own.
> I believe that we are exactly on this point of view.
You can agree with the .god zealot if you wish, it will change nothing
to the Regulation which sets the rules for .eu:
It was a political decision by the EU, neither EUreg, nor CORE decided
it, so the framework is settled. No need to rehash old discussions
(the regulation has been published three months ago). I prefer to move
to new issues (privacy, internationalization, qualification, etc).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org