[NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement

[Kim Davies]

On 6/10/09 12:24 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> 
> I am saying that, even in non-democratic regimes, a government represents the
> interest of its (Internet-using) publlc more than its "Internet community"
> ever will. 
> ...
> ICANN is within its rights to refuse transfer of a ccTLD to a "registry" just
> started by the Supreme Leader's cousin.

How are you drawing the distinction between a non-democratic regime making
an appointment, and... a non-democratic regime making an appointment?

> I reject your assertion, unless you just mean "most people that you hear
> from". It stands to reason that the vested interests would assert their
> squatters' rights to ICANN, but that the general public (which is uninterested
> or ignorant of ICANN policy) is silent to you.

Maybe. But I would have thought IANA has a fairly good lens on the public as
that is usually where they naturally go to lodge their complaints about
their how their TLD is managed. It is where governments go to express their
views. I think I am exposed to a great deal of the dynamics of these
situations. 

I do kind of resent the implication that I have no sense of the general
public views. My introduction to the TLD arena was as an Internet user in
Australia that wanted .AU to be managed better. Through a process in the
mid-1990s I was part of a community group that created an organisation to
run the domain. That failed, and we tried again, which succeeded. I was an
inaugural "demand" director (equivalent of "at large"). We went through the
process of encouraging the Australian Government to get involved, and in
2000 went through the process of convincing ICANN to do a redelegation.

> Consider that this is the first time you've participated in this At-Large list
> on the subject, and I don't see many here rushing to defend the position of
> letting governments and ccTLD squatters "sort it out". So far, 100% of the
> opinion I've seen here -- from people who are not ICANN staff -- is that the
> government has primary rights and there is nothing to "sort out". I would

I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from
people in countries in western countries with stable governments, for which
these kinds of cases where the government is totally out of sync simply
don't happen. I think it would be unfair to claim any consensus denoted by
silence is broadly reflective of the Internet users who deal with the kinds
of issues we are referencing.

kim