[discuss] Options for root zone
Louis Pouzin (well)
pouzin at well.com
Sat Jan 18 17:48:37 UTC 2014
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us>wrote:
> This discussion could benefit from a somewhat broader and more
> substantive perspective.
> (5) The "approval" of entries to the root, which is covered by a
> Cooperative Agreement (contract) between the Department of Commerce and
> Verisign, is an historical artifact that serves no useful purpose today but
> was, and perhaps still is, a matter of potentially complex legal dispute
> between Verisign and the U.S. Government if anyone chooses to challenge it,
> which is extremely unlikely. *The USG, as a founder, signatory, and
> Security Council member of the UN, would hardly act unilaterally to not
> fulfill a UN decision on what is a country entitled to a place in the root.
> It is hard to see this as an IG issue except to very small minds.*
> Actually, it does happen
On Dec 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM louis pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote
[governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US
Another case of crooked interference is the bulgarian cyrillic ccTLD, *бг*,
chosen by the bulgarian gov and persistently rejected by ICANN.
The whole story was published a few years ago by Daniel Kalchev on the igc
list. ICANN kept invoking tortuous and delusive arguments which were
totally irrelevant, because the Tunis Agenda reads:
*« 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another
country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate
interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways,
regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld
and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. »*
The Tunis Agenda is crystal clear, it's a violation to reject the bulgarian
ccTLD. Nevertheless ICANN being an illegitimate monopoly imposed by the US
gov, it can afford being a violator, incompetent and parasitic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss