On 5/10/09 3:22 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Given that ICANN's mandate is simply one to maintain stability and security, it seems that those should be the ONLY criteria that should matter to ICANN. If a country wants to re-delegate its ccTLD, it is not up to ICANN to determine whether "its internet community" has been sufficiently consulted.
If a government wants to re-delegate and the new registry is technically capable, that should be all that matters. Anything more has ICANN involved in national politics. And anything more indeed indicates that ICANN dictates to countries what they can do with their ccTLDs.
I think the only thing in disagreement is what is the true representation of "a country". Your comments suggest that it can only be represented by decree of the government, whereas current practice is it is the result of a process involving the community and the government. I guess arguably it is the distinction between top-down or bottom-up.
If there is a dispute between community and government, ICANN has ABSOLUTELTY NO business getting in the middle.
Nor should it (IMHO), and it doesn't. As far as I am aware, in such cases the status quo has been maintained until those in the country sort it out. The suggestion here seems to be that if there is a significant dispute between community consensus, and the government, ICANN should simply always do what the government says and to hell with all the other factors. Some would consider that precisely getting in the middle. Quoth Jon Postel, "The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree." kim