RE: [ga] RE: is ICANN or is ICANN not?

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Roberto,
I report this thread to a certain numbers of outsiders. I suggest you 
reread what you wrote before I confirm it. This is very important. 
This is your position. You are the ICANN Vice-Chair and, since the 
Chair is going to retire, it will be considered with the greatest 
care, to know if this is a position from the Vice Chair of an IGF 
International body, serving the world digital ecosystem, or of an US 
Agency directing its Internet to best suit  the market influence of 
the US Industry

I am sure you will realise the impact of this mail of yours. This 
deliberately opposes the Tunis agenda I quoted yesterday and is 
therefore a violation of the Tunis agreement by an US Agency. This de 
facto removes ICANN from the IGF processus.

I am fully neutral about it. I must only be prepared to document the 
new DNS top zone, as I do every day for years for many people using 
it for their operations. A ne top zone, because this would authorise 
every other party (them being civil society, economic interests, 
governments, international entities, SSDOs and R&D) to protect 
themselves against the impact of such a IANA declaration of 
independance, under the sole control of ICANN/NTIA/US Industry, and 
opposing RFC 1591, ICP-1 and the Tunis agenda. This would legitimates 
every non concerted local linguistic, regional, or local TLD by local 
authorities or communities.

You will understand that if you maintain such a position, ICANN has 
no more legitimacy to manage the root file which is the embodiement 
of national sovereign rights collected and supported by ICANN, and 
not an US authority over the rest of the world delegated to ICANN. It 
means that everyone is legitimate in adding/removing its own TLDs, 
and correcting the ICANN choice, in order to respect ISO 3166 in 
their own DNS (as per RFC 920 and 1591, and ICP-1 and ICP-3). This 
probably represents 20,000 TLDs being in use. Starting wth Karl's own TLD.

jfc

At 23:05 31/01/2007, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > > I do hope that ICANN learned the lesson as well.
> > >
> > It did, I can assure you.
> > That's also why it is now looking for community input on TLD sunset, before
> > taking action on .su.
>
> Roberto, who gave ICANN a mandate for allocating or retiring ccTLD names?
> Or to take action on .SU?
> Or just any other ccTLD for that matter?
> Who autorised ICANN to make policy regarding ccTLDs?
> Is that within IANA contract?
>
> Best regards,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve

At 23:54 31/01/2007, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Elisabeth,
>
> I am puzzled by your questions, because I believe that we would give the
> same answers, but this whole discussion might make the rest of the audience
> believe that we are on diametrally opposite positions.
>
> Anyway, let's try (it's my last post on the subject, except for possible
> apologies if I said something inaccurate).
>
> > Roberto, who gave ICANN a mandate for allocating or retiring
> > ccTLD names?
> Please refer to http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-14aug06.pdf. Look
> at clause C.2.2.1.2.
>
> > Or to take action on .SU?
> It is part of the ÏANA Root Management Requests", referenced above.
> There is no hurry to take .su out of the root, except for the fact that at
> one point in time SU could be reallocated by ISO-3166/MA (under current
> rules, not earlier than some 40+ years, but it would be bad policy to depend
> on rules established by others). If this happens, IANA might be asked to
> process the delegation of .su, and it might be utterly inconvenient to have
> .su. So it might be healthy to revocate the one deprecated by ISO-3166/MA
>
> > Or just any other ccTLD for that matter?
> Same story.
>
> > Who autorised ICANN to make policy regarding ccTLDs?
> Nobody. But since the ICANN Board has to approve the IANA recommendations to
> put them into action, to obey the letter of the contract above, it seems to
> be a fair thing to have a general policy, discussed with the community,
> rather than take decisions on a case-by-case basis.
>
> > Is that within IANA contract?
> "That" being the delegation/redelegation/revocation, yes.
> "That" being the formulation of policy, no.
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> If anybody has different facts, please feel free to correct me.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto

At 00:30 01/02/2007, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Elisabeth,
>
> If ICANN is providing a useful service with appropriate community input,
> does it really matter who gave ICANN the mandate or authority?
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> P.S. - Always good to see you active again.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:06 PM
> To: roberto@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] RE: is ICANN or is ICANN not?
>
>
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > > I do hope that ICANN learned the lesson as well.
> > >
> > It did, I can assure you.
> > That's also why it is now looking for community input on TLD sunset,
> > before taking action on .su.
>
> Roberto, who gave ICANN a mandate for allocating or retiring ccTLD
> names?
> Or to take action on .SU?
> Or just any other ccTLD for that matter?
> Who autorised ICANN to make policy regarding ccTLDs?
> Is that within IANA contract?
>
> Best regards,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve

At 00:47 01/02/2007, Andy Gardner wrote:

> On Jan 31, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Elisabeth,
> >
> > If ICANN is providing a useful service with appropriate community
> > input,
>
> I'm sorry?
>
> Did I miss sometthing?

At 01:50 01/02/2007, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Elisabeth,
> > If ICANN is providing a useful service with appropriate community input,
> > does it really matter who gave ICANN the mandate or authority?
>
> It does.
>
> ICANN *is* a forum.  An synonym is that ICANN is a "combination".
>
> And ICANN is a combination that establishes rules for a marketplace 
> and makes final choices regarding who may, and who may not be a 
> vendor in that marketplace, establishes many aspects of what are and 
> what are not acceptable products in that marketplace, establishes 
> price components, takes an override fee on all sales, and defines 
> several of the terms of sales.  This could be called, more 
> succinctly, "restraint of trade."
>
> In other words ICANN is "a combination in restraint of trade."
>
> Now, some combinations in restraint of trade are frowned upon by the 
> laws of various countries.  And often that frowning applies not only 
> to the forum itself but also to those vendors who participate in those fora.
>
> One way in which such a combination might escape the effects of 
> those frowns is if it is operated under the authority of a 
> governmental authority with appropriate authority.  NTIA/Dept of 
> Commerce is certainly a governmental authority.  But it is not clear 
> whether NTIA/DoC have endowed ICANN with governmental immunity; nor 
> is it clear whether NTIA/DoC have the legal authority to do so.
>
> So yes, it is a *very* important question.  And any company or 
> person who participates in ICANN should ask their legal counsel 
> whether such participation might engender consequences should some 
> country decide to move from frowing to enforcement, or if some 
> private actor should ask that question in a legal proceeding in some country.
>
>                 --karl--