[Kictanet] Fw: [alac] Who owns Gondwanaland's domain?

[alice at apc.org]

> Thought this might be of interest. Apologies for cross posting
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Who really owns Gondwanaland's domain?
>
>
> By Stephen Bell, Wellington | Thursday, 13 April, 2006
>
>
>
> Exactly who owns a country's internet domain? This was the question put to
> delegates attending the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers) conference in Wellington last week.
>
> A panel of government and internet community delegates heard a number of
> scenarios dealing with government involvement with the internet.
>
> Gondwanaland, a fictitious country, and its domain, was used as a basis 
> for
> discussing the issues around who "owns" a country's domain.
>
> The first scenario supposed that Gondwanaland domain's manager passed
> control of the domain on to his or her cousin. Should they be allowed to 
> do
> so? If not, who should be consulted?
>
> The government should be consulted, said Frank March, from New Zealand's
> Ministry of Economic Development and InternetNZ, if only as a 
> representative
> of the people. With the internet so heavily used today, you have to ask: 
> "Is
> .nz owned by the New Zealand community [or] is it public property?"
>
> Before allowing the domain to be handed over, ICANN should at least check
> some form of public consultation had taken place, says March.
>
> Malaysia's Communications Commission delegate, Sharil Tarmizi, has a
> different view.
>
> "It's not a matter of whether government should be consulted, but whether
> government approval for the change should be sought," he says. The 
> internet
> is a "national resource".
>
> But, suppose the domain was handed over without government approval, and 
> the
> government subsequently says the new owner should not have it. What then?
> New Zealand Domain Name Commissioner, Debbie Monahan, believes 
> effectiveness
> in the job should be the criterion here.
>
> "The government has no right to take it away from me if I'm doing my job,"
> she says. But, Tarmizi countered that even if this was so, "there has to 
> be
> some sense of accountability [to government]."
>
> The situation of .go domain holders who do not live in Gondwanaland 
> further
> complicates matters. They are not beholden to the government, but they 
> still
> have an interest in the domain, says Monahan.
>
> Suppose then that the government concerned approaches ICANN to get the
> domain moved to another party? What then?
>
> ICANN's Government Advisory Committee says the matter should be dealt with
> in accordance with the national law of the country concerned, says Cheryl
> Langdon Orr, the delegate from the Internet Society's Australian chapter.
> ICANN would not consider itself empowered to make such a move if ownership
> was legal. However, the government concerned could step in and make a new
> law if it wished.
>
> Another scenario supposed that a military coup took place in Gondwanaland
> and that the ruling general then appointed his cousin "Supreme Head of IT"
> and the owner of the .go domain. How should ICANN react to this?
>
> ICANN should stall and consult the pre-coup holder of the domain to assess
> public support for the change, says Canadian domain manager Bernie 
> Turcotte.
> New Zealand's ICANN board member Peter Dengate Thrush pointed out that
> delegates were neglecting the legal analysis of domain problems.
>
> "A country-code, top-level domain is owned by the community, and ownership
> is a legal concept," he says. The fact of possession has legal weight and
> should work against any irregular transfer of ownership.
>
> Further scenarios suggested were even wilder. One involved the original
> owner having a gun pointed at his head, begging ICANN to allow the domain 
> to
> be transferred to save his life. The consensus was that the transfer 
> should
> go ahead, but that a return to the original owner should be considered
> later.
>
> As a last resort, ICANN can take a domain back and do its own 
> re-delegation.
> But the panel consensus was this should only happen if the rules laid out 
> in
> RFC 1591 were breached.
>
> Copyright C 2005, IDG Communications New Zealand Limited. Privacy Policy
> <http://idg.co.nz/privacy>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>