| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.af Redelegation: Another Government-Initiated Redelegation
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
I don't think there is anything suspicious about the fact that for some years the admin contact was not contactable but that he has now been located.
To be blunt if I was the person listed as being in charge of the Afghanistan country code while the Taliban were in power I'd be going into hiding also and not answering my e-mail.
With a change to a more benign government and presumably a local rather than IANA search for him, no surprise he was located and agreeable.
DPF
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
All we see is the letter from the purported administrative contact - a letter that contained no return address or other way to begin to evaluate its authenticity.
How did that letter arrive? Did it arrive by postal mail - in which case it presumably was in an envelope with a postmark. Or did a duck waddle out of the remaining marshlands of Marina del Rey and drop the letter in Louis Touton's car? Isn't it odd that someone who purports to be an administrative contact doesn't disclose his e-mail address.
If in the sex.com case it is found that Verisign was negligent in its handling of the fraudulant transfer request, then what can we say about the degree of care that was exercised by ICANN as IANA when the subject matter is not a simple domain in .com but instead something much more significant, a ccTLD, the name of a nation on the Internet?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I can't see any problem in the fact that a redelegation is initiated by the government, especially in the case of underdeveloped ccTLDs where the local Internet community is presumably non-existant.
Though we might not like it completely, a country's ccTLD, as all its resources, is a "property" of its government. In case of a conflict between the local Internet community and the government about who manages the ccTLD, the government has "the knife from the side of the handle": for example, it might simply pass a law to prevent anyone else in the country from running the ccTLD. The local Internet community may try to prevent this by acting on the press and the public opinion, but it has no actual power to stop a government-mandated redelegation, nor it has IANA.
And if you don't accept this, then it descends that a country's ccTLD is the property of the Department of Commerce of the US Government, something that the rest of the world cannot accept. I don't think that IANA, in any case, should have the right to decide who manages a foreign country's ccTLD (though it should foster the finding of an agreed solution between the government, the present registry and the community, rather than immediately following any request from the government). I definitely prefer .it to be ruled by the Italian government (no matter how bad it might be) than by the US one.
--vb. (Vittorio Bertola)
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
