[governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement madein Plenary]

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Oh sorry, Lee. I was replying to you and Michael. It was Michael who 
mentioned the ITU. I should have been clearer.
jeanette
Lee McKnight wrote:
> Where did I say give it to the ITU?
> 
> And where did I say what exactly governments deserve re their ccTLDs?
> 
> I also don't think I said that it shouldn't be multistakeholder.
> 
> I did say CS should define the role governments deserve, particularly
> in regards to ccTLDs.  
> 
> So figure out how to circumscribe (the government role) tghtly so they
> don't muck things up.  Right now one government has a role, which many
> in CS think it doesn't deserve or at least not just by itself.  
> 
> Lee
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
> 
>>>>Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 10/03/05 1:04 PM >>>
> 
> 
> 
> Lee McKnight wrote:
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I agree with Michael.
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> 
>>In sum, we should figure out a position that gives governments what
>>they legitimately deserve, 
> 
> 
> Do they?
> And what happens when governments find out that what actually matters 
> are numbers and not names? Would you be wiling to hand them over to the
> 
> ITU too?
> While I don't mind governments in the position of "shadow hierarchies",
> 
> I do mind policy organizations that exclude civil society. We said this
> 
> in Geneva again and again: the management of the Internet should be 
> organized as a multi stakeholder process. I can't see why this wouldn't
> 
> apply to ccTLDs.
> jeanette
> 
> even if they don't actually own their TLD as
> 
>>Michael notes.  But CS should know better than to expect reasonable
>>treatment of CS interests if the game is given to governments, as
> 
> recent
> 
>>experience demonstrates yet again. Even if CS is outside the locked
>>doors of government negoiators, by sorting out a reasonable
> 
> compromise
> 
>>that works, CS can as we have seen, have impact on the government
>>negotiators who will have a couple days in November to reach closure,
> 
> or
> 
>>walk away with everyone grumbling about the failure to achieve
> 
> raised
> 
>>expectations.  Not that the game will end in November, but it
> 
> hopefully
> 
>>can move on to a different playing field with a new set of
> 
> guidelines.
> 
>>Lee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>>School of Information Studies
>>Syracuse University
>>+1-315-443-6891office
>>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>froomkin at law.miami.edu 10/03/05 11:10 AM >>>
>>
>>Well, since you ask...
>>
>>Goodness knows that no one is currently more removed from what is
>>really 
>>going on behind the scenes at WSIS than I.  But from a distance, the
>>most 
>>meritorious concern that governments have is the idea that
> 
> regulation
> 
>>of 
>>'their' ccTLD would in some way be constrained by US/California law.
>>
>>Let me start by saying that in fact I don't accept, as a theoretical
> 
> 
>>matter, the idea that a ccTLD 'belongs' to a government.  Details
> 
> are
> 
>>in 
>>When We Say US(TM), We Mean It!, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 839 (2004),
> 
> available
> 
>>at 
>>www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, so I won't repeat
> 
> 
>>those arguments here.
>>
>>But, working from realpolitik considerations, it seems to me that 
>>giving ccTLD regulation to the ITU or some purpose-made body makes a
> 
> 
>>degree of sense.  Certainly more sense, anyway, that it does for
> 
> gTLDs
> 
>>(a 
>>group that in my view of the world includes so-called sTLDs). The
>>issues 
>>about recognition of appropriate delegates of ccTLDs (cf. .iq) are
>>often 
>>very different from the issues of what company is qualified to run a
>>TLD 
>>and what the string might be.  They involve very difference
>>competencies 
>>and have different sorts of political and even economic implications.
> 
> 
>>Arguably, they require different sorts of accountability mechanisms
>>too, 
>>and those are primarily either internal to the country that claims
> 
> the
> 
>>2-letter TLD, or truly international.  And both those things are very
> 
> 
>>different from a gTLD.
>>
>>I could say even more if you required, but I think that's the
> 
> essence.
> 
>>It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers
> 
> something
> 
>>for almost everyone...
>>
>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for
>>>>just this reason?
>>>
>>>Can you say more on that, please?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance