ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2

  • To: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:08:50 -0700
  • Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx, marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>I was trying to illustrate, but perhaps not well,&nbsp;that
attempting to define ICANN's mission in the statement was not
appropriate. See my more specific statements about the draft. Hopefully
they are clearer.<BR><BR>Tim</div>
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2<BR>From: "Milton
Mueller" &lt;mueller@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, November 26, 2004 12:25
am<BR>To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx, marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Milton
Mueller"<BR>&lt;Mueller@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Tim,<BR>I'm still not sure I understand
what your concerns are, so forgive me<BR>if I am missing the target.
But let me try to answer this, because I<BR>still don't think you are
raising an objection to the current draft,<BR>indeed I think you are
supporting it. <BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; Tim Ruiz &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;
11/24/2004 8:51:55 AM &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;ICANN's mission involves the
security and stability of the Internet.<BR>&gt;At some point, that may
take precendent over fostering competition.<BR>If<BR>&gt;some country's
local laws make it impossible for a registrar to<BR>operate<BR>&gt;in a
manner that complies with what is deemed as necessary
policies<BR>to<BR>&gt;ensure that stability and security then isn't it
reasonable to<BR>consider<BR>&gt;that until the conflicts are resolved,
registrar accreditations in<BR>that<BR>&gt;country may not be
possible?<BR><BR>As I understand the current draft, the answer to your
question is<BR>"yes." And it is "yes" without any changes needed in the
wording. Under<BR>Step 3, item iii, if the deviations from the ICANN
contract required by<BR>local law are somehow so sweeping as to
undermine ICANN's core mission<BR>(as defined in the by-laws), then in
the current draft the General<BR>Counsel and Board are advised to
recommend &nbsp;de-accreditation of the<BR>registrar. <BR><BR>Moreover,
I wish to emphasize that it would be _very_ difficult for<BR>changes in
Whois access to destabilize the DNS. I cannot say that it
is<BR>impossible, but I I have a difficult time thinking of
any<BR>privacy-related changes in the display or collection of Whois
data that<BR>would affect the stability and security of the DNS.
Perhaps a very poor<BR>implementation of some legal requirements might
have that affect, but<BR>the ICANN in that case could tell the
registrar to change the<BR>implementation or lose accreditation.
<BR><BR>As I tried to explain in a teleconference a few weeks ago, the
display<BR>of contact data is NOT central to the interoperability of
the Internet,<BR>the stability of its technical functioning, or the
coordination of<BR>unique identifiers. <BR><BR>--MM </BLOCKQUOTE>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>