Hi Kim, On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Kim Davies wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:55:02 -0700 From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> To: Bob Bruen <naralo@coldrain.net> Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
Hi,
On 5/10/09 12:24 PM, "Bob Bruen" <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
....
I am contributing to this thread because if we can do our job better, I would really like to hear it. It is particularly timely to have this discussion because the ccNSO recently chartered a working group to address the delegation rules, and concrete suggestions on how it should be done differently would be excellent input to that process.
I appreciate that approach and believe or not, that is our approach as well.
You are referring to a delegation that happened in 1992. That pre-dates ICANN by six years.
Actually, I am refering to that document signed recently, delegation, or redelegation or not. It was done without the apparent involvement of the Ukranian government. Rod should have insisted on (or published as the case may be) that some legitimate governmental authority be signatory to the agreement (or produced some other document).
I am not going to presuppose what due-diligence went into selecting the .UA operator in 1992, and what level of government engagement was involved. I simply don't know, although I do know that governments typically took little active interest in ccTLD affairs in that era.
Yes, Jon Postel gave away ccTLDs and most governments did not have a clue, but that does not excuse the continued bad behavior, when we all know better now. IANA preceded ICANN and they are still around, under ICANN. Whatever was done in the beginning is ICANN's problem now. I do not believe in a statute of limitations on the granting to ccTLDs to non governmental bodies or individuals. It's a cleanup problem, now.
The document you refer to is not a redelegation, it is an accountability framework. They are not ccTLD transfers. You can find reports of transfers of ccTLDs during the ICANN-era at http://www.iana.org/reports/
Again it does not matter to me about the redelegation. These agreements go by many names, but in the end it is ICANN condoning the arrangement as it stands. There are numerous countries that have outsourced the running of their ccTLDs. I just want it all to be transparent and control returned to the government (like Honduras).
Accountability Frameworks are designed for the current operator of a ccTLD tpo spell out their obligations to the community, and ICANN to reciprocate by selling out its obligations. Given the nature of the document I am not sure why you should be executed with a third party (be it the government or some other entity).
So, back to your statement that your concern is ICANN assigned ccTLDs "to an individual or company just because they ask for it." The fact that a company is the one that runs a ccTLD doesn't imply there was no due-diligence involved. Please provide an example that suggest this happens.
======================================================================== The RFP is here:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-17aug09-en.htm
Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) 17 August 20090
The closing date for repsonses has passed.
This is the routine ICANN SO/AC review process, that happens with all SOs and ACs. I don't see how this is connected with anything that happened in Sydney.
===================================================================== I I I have put four documents on line for background. There are more, but these are are public, well done and discuss the issues. Let me know if you experience any problems. Youn Park's article is from her doctoral dissertation, which I do not have permission to put on line yet. I have read it and she has done a wonderful job of researching and presenting the issues.
I met with to YJ Park in August and pointed out to a number of substantial errors of fact upon which her analysis is based.
IANA list fixes: Accuracy and transparency for starters. Also, as mentioned, links to documents from ccTLD governments giving permission to others to run there ccTLD. One thing that could be done is send an email to each of the contacts on the list to see how many are still valid and to see if they know about who runs their ccTLD.
To be clear, governments do not have to "give permission" to ICANN for others to run "their" ccTLD. That is not an ICANN requirement. You might find this I wrote last week useful: http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/local-internet-communities/
That is not what I said. Let me clarify, I want to see the document in which a government outsources (licenses, contracts, whatever) to another party on the IANA list of ccTLD contacts. The permission involved is when the government gives it. Nothing to do with ICANN, just make it public so everyone can see which government gave it away and which had it taken away.
Furthermore, if .TV is delegated to the Government of Tuvalu (which it is), and they decide to award rights to operate aspects of it to VeriSign (which I believe it has), I don't see ICANN has the capability to obtain that contract and make it public.
I respectfully disagree. ICANN can ask for it or a "letter of assignmnent" (or something) just to keep things transparent. It really protects the government and would prevent the Honduras and Namibia problems.
========================================================================= Kim said: "The IANA database is the authoritative contact persons for top-level domain operators. If there are invalid contact details it is because TLD operators have failed to keep their record up-to-date. What is ICANN meant to do, remove the TLD from the root until they fix their contact details?"
Bob says: This is clearly sarcasm, not helpful dialogue, but if that is how you wish to deal with the issue, so be it. I have found that there are two types of people at ICANN, those who wish to help fix problems and those that wish to hinder. Pick one.
I am not trying to be sarcastic - rather illuminating a specific problem. It is all very well and good to say IANA should have accurate contact details, but what enforcement mechanisms does ICANN have to make it a reality? It does not have contracts with ccTLD operators. It only has the powers of persuasion (which we try to use), and a "nuclear option" in its arsenal. No-one would argue having accurate contact details is desirable, but if one is going to propose useful solutions they need to recognise the reality of TLD operators simply not complying with keeping their details up-to-date.
To give you an actual example. We know the administrative contact for a ccTLD is not accurate. It is the former president and he has died. We have spoken to the Government, even met with representatives, and urged them to update their records. They have not decided to do so to date. What steps could ICANN take to remedy the situation?
Well, if you know it is inaccurate and you know (and you might not) the current situation, then fix the record yourself. Urging people to do things doesn't always work, whereas doing it yourself usually does. I know of a situation where an American runs non-USA ccTLDs and his name does not show up anywhere, unless you dig really deeply. If he is legitimate, this should be public and he should be less cranky about it. regards, bob