Hi, On 5/10/09 12:24 PM, "Bob Bruen" <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
I have tried to provide some resources and some clarity for those whose reading ability has been clouded by emotions or agendas. This is a real issue that requires real thought with real consequences. I do not expect total agreement, but a little respect might be nice. Understanding a point of view does not imply agreement.
I think this goes both ways. I am merely interested in any discussion about ccTLDs stays in the realm of facts. It is never helpful when mailing lists go on a tangent based on some outlandish "facts" like the list of USA-run TLDs that was presented, so I am seeking to ensure that what is being discussed is accurate. I actually happen to disagree with some ICANN policies, but as staff my job is merely to implement them. 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.
The first question of examples: Here is where the ccTLD agreements (with numerous names for different types) are located: One specific example, although there are lots: This one was signed on Sept 2, 2009 by Rod Beckstrom: http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/ua/ua-icann-letters-02sep09-en.pdf
The agreement is with Communications Systems Ltd. Dmitry Kohmanyuk PO Box 99 Kyiv 01033 Ukraine
not with the government of Ukraine. Perhaps, Ukraine has delegated the running of its ccTLD to Mr. Kohmanyuk, but I have not found a document that states that from the Ukrainian government. One of my fixes to the IANA list would include a link to each government with such a document. It would go a long way to providing credibility and transparency.
You are referring to a delegation that happened in 1992. That pre-dates ICANN by six years. 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. 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/ 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/ 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.
========================================================================= 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?
========================================================================= Kim said: "This seems in direct conflict with what you said earlier. You say it is OK for a country to decide to outsource how the TLD is run, but then you are implying it is not OK here?"
Bob says: More sarcasm. I did not imply any such thing. I suggest a more careful reading of what I wrote.
Could you be more explicit what you would like to see then? Apologies if I misunderstood. kim