[discuss] Options for root zone

[Jorge Amodio]

> On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:48 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> [snip]
>  
>> (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

This certainly contradicts what you are making reference to point 63 of the Tunis agenda, afaik the UN is not a non-profit association of cricket teams.

> Another case of crooked interference is the bulgarian cyrillic ccTLD, бг, chosen by the bulgarian gov and persistently rejected by ICANN.

This particular case has nothing to do with the USG.

> 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.

The Tunis Agenda is what it says it is, not the table of commandments for the Internet.

-Jorge 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/f59f45f2/attachment.html>