Hi, The ccTLD and the gTLD/other TLDs records are within the ICANN root. While there are procedures that ensures a distributed control, the reality remains that the one who maintains the root has the overall "technical control" which is Verisign. The community/ICANN/ccTLD et all trust that they will continue to respect laid down process and not go out of scope. That symbolises the principle for which the internet was built upon which is trust at the middle of all our political and personal interests. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 23 Jun 2016 6:25 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Appreciate your intervention, Greg.
As you point out, my main point was that ICANN maintains an accurate root zone file (yes, with VeriSign performing the actual technical work, now under contract with the USG, soon to be under contract with ICANN) and has no control over the operation of a ccTLD.
I stand corrected on my use of the word "control" in regard to the relationship between a national government of the country with which the particular ccTLD is associated, and this denizen of the gTLD sector looks forward to learning more about ccTLDs.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 22, 2016, at 6:45 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the more germane (and more accurate) statement of Phil's was the second part of his couplet:
ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn't decide who performs technical and other operations for a given ccTLD.
(Yes, actually the Root Zone Maintainer (currently Verisign) actually maintains the root zone, not ICANN. The point is the powerlessness of ICANN to actually cause (rather than receive, verify and transmit) changes to the root. This will be even more so when Root Zone administration is in a separate corporation (currently known as PTI).)
I know enough about ccTLD "control" to know that any generality about ccTLD control is false. Even this one.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Greetings Phil.
You state:
I'm not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own ccTLD.
Can you cite any statute (US or otherwise) or policy (IETF, IANA, ICANN, etc.) that supports your claim that "...any nation controls its own ccTLD."?
Thank you.
Regards,
Stephen Deerhake .AS Domain Registry GDNS, LLC
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:30 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
I'm not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own ccTLD.
ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn't decide who performs technical and other operations for a given ccTLD.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:11 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
And the redelegation of .US . . . .
On 22/06/16 20:39, Phil Corwin wrote:
So long as we have a common understanding of what would constitute "interference by the U.S. government" (of which there has been little to none since ICANN's inception, with the possible exception of the delay in .xxx delegation to the root). I presume you are advocating deciding upon a process to address such an occurrence, rather than making a decision now about an alternate jurisdiction for a situation that may never arise, or occur decades from now.
I'll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include interference in ICANN's policymaking process (outside of advocacy within the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root zone, through methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.
I don't think it should include private litigation brought against ICANN and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions, such as bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of illicit pricing decisions, or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell***
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM *To:* Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
In the reflexive approach, you would ask "what are the institutional mechanisms or procedures to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be addressed in an adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer tenable, however rare it may it?" In the absolute rarest of rare cases that the US legislature or judiciary try to interfere with community decisions (the black swan scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this interference is contained/minimised? What are the institutional mechanisms or procedures for addressing the situation where the US (or any other) jurisdiction is no longer hospitable/ideal for the ICANN policymaking or IANA functions? These are the questions that we should be asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.
MM: I think this is a good point. Even advocates of US jurisdiction or those who, like me, think there is just no better alternative and that the disruption and risks caused by a change are not worth the uncertain improvements, can easily agree that there should be procedures or plans for how to respond to interference by the U.S. government.
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community