RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Define Internet. They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. So if the ccTLDs are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. Who owns the 13 root servers? Regards, Joanna -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Freed Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections Did not the funds originally come from the government Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. -- ken At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, which is (was) public property. No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a private network. If it's a public network (as the MoU people kept asserting) then the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, at 16:37 [=GMT-0500], Joanna Lane wrote: Define Internet They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the groups that own that resource, in this case the US people So if the ccTLDs are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network Who owns the 13 root servers? The IP numbers are under control of: a: networksolutions b: isiedu (icann?) c: psinet d: umdedu e: nasa f: mibh (vixie) g: disa (mil) h: us army research lab i: autonomicase (= sunet?), sweden j: networksolutions k: ripe, london, uk l: epnet m: university of tokyo Who owns the root servers depends on your definition and perspective Who owns the root zone? []
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Joanna Lane wrote: They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. UDRP and Sunrise are part and parcel of the Neustar agreement to run .us that has been approved by the DoC and is now being implemented. And the US people have neither ownership nor control of .us. M.S. So if the ccTLDs are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. Who owns the 13 root servers? Regards, Joanna -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Freed Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections Did not the funds originally come from the government Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. -- ken At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, which is (was) public property. No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a private network. If it's a public network (as the MoU people kept asserting) then the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Joanna Lane wrote: They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the groups that own that resource, in this case the US people UDRP and Sunrise are part and parcel of the Neustar agreement to run us that has been approved by the DoC and is now being implemented And the US people have neither ownership nor control of us MS Michael, I disagree It looks like it was ammended http://wwwntiadocgov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfp/SB1335-02-W-0175-0001htm Reasons explained by NTIA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Assistant Chief Counsel for Telecommunications and Assistant Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property, the agreement violates both the APA and RFA http://wwwsbagov/advo/laws/comments/doc02_0205html; Which is what I said:-) Joanna
