2009/10/5 Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>
ICANN doesn't dictate to "a country" how their ccTLD may be used.
Actually, from the rest of your description is seems that this is exactly the case.
We are saying we only approve delegation and redelegation requests to meet a number of criteria.
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.
We do not tell a country "you must have XYZ run your TLD", however we may tell XYZ if they apply for a delegation that "your request for delegation is deficient in the following ways..."
Unless the objections are purely technical or capacity related, such comments must be advisory only and should not be an impediment to requested changes. The essence of our evaluation is what is in the interests of the local
Internet community.
Given what I have already seen in the new-gTLD gamesmanship, it seems almost trivial for a suitably motivated player to game local consultation to support or reject any particular proposed government move. This is not for ICANN to judge beyond technical merit. Does the would-be registry have the ability, the capacity, and the committment to ICANN policy? That should be *all* that matters,
I think Antony covered it well in his posts, but sometimes a government's desire for a transfer does not appropriately reflect the wishes of the community, and is not a stable path forward.
I am unsure of the logical leap between those two assertions -- why difference in opinion from the community necessarily indicates technical instability. If anything, ICANN itself is ill-equipped to determine who is "the Internet community" in all cases. Doing so opens ICANN up to gamesmanship and politics far beyond what is warranted. Stability of any proposed new registry can be established independently of community "wishes", And one has to accept that the government of a country is a better judge of the will of its people than ICANN could ever be -- even in a non-democratic society. Keep in mind that now the Internet is used by many who do not self-identify as being part of the "Internet community"... thus a government can claim to be acting on behalf of all Internet-using people, not just the "Internet community" which may be full of self-interests.
In my time at ICANN certainly there have been requests of this nature have not been endorsed by ICANN.
That has been a mistake, either of policy, of execution, or both.
I think its worth highlighting we are talking about corner cases here. The majority of ccTLD operators are widely supported and there is no argument between the community and the government.
If there is a dispute between community and government, ICANN has ABSOLUTELTY NO business getting in the middle. Is the government proposal technically sound? That's all that should matter. Anything more is serious meddling in internal politics and must be opposed. - Evan