[dns-operations] Enabling the IPv6-only Internet: the Final TLDs

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Sat Sep 12 14:46:22 UTC 2015

On 12 Sep 2015, at 10:07, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:

> "It is the intention of both parties that this exchange of lettes will
> not form the basis for any claim for any legal or equitable relief,
> give rise to a binding contract or create reliance on the part of
> either party. Nothing contained in this letter shall give rise to any
> liability, monetary or otherwise, by either one of us to the other."
> Publishing this under the heading "ccTLD Agreements" seems like a bit
> of a stretch to me...

We at Netnod have an exchange of letters with ICANN for the root service we provide, and then agreements with the parties we run anycast and unicast services for.

What I think should be remembered is that one of the reason one have such language is because many of the peers already are under regulation of the local legislation and oversight by the local regulator using already existing telecommunication legislation. In some cases very explicit.

It is correct it makes it hard or even impossible for ICANN to directly influence the peer, but it does not imply the peer can provide the service in whatever way they like. The contrary, in some cases local explicit legislation within the jurisdiction one operates services can be more powerful than any commercial agreement that exists.

It is just not as simple to quickly turn a switch and the Internet will be IPv6 enabled.

And I ask myself whether whip is the right tool to resolve the issues. Sometimes carrots are more efficient.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20150912/06442da1/attachment.sig>

More information about the dns-operations mailing list