<<<
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>Milton,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was trying to illustrate, but perhaps not well, 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>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
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" <mueller@xxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, November 26, 2004 12:25
am<BR>To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx, marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Milton
Mueller"<BR><Mueller@xxxxxxx><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>>>> Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
11/24/2004 8:51:55 AM >>><BR>>ICANN's mission involves the
security and stability of the Internet.<BR>>At some point, that may
take precendent over fostering competition.<BR>If<BR>>some country's
local laws make it impossible for a registrar to<BR>operate<BR>>in a
manner that complies with what is deemed as necessary
policies<BR>to<BR>>ensure that stability and security then isn't it
reasonable to<BR>consider<BR>>that until the conflicts are resolved,
registrar accreditations in<BR>that<BR>>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 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
>>>
|