On 5/10/09 9:26 AM, "Bob Bruen" <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
It is a problem for me when ICANN signs over the control of a .yy to an individual or company just because they ask for it.
Can you give examples when this has happened? I do not believe there are any.
If the country then wants to contract out the running of .yy to that individual or company, so be it. The people of the country ought to have a say in what happens - that is more like the multi-stakeholder issue at the local level and of course more democratic.
So that is how it is now. What are you advocating be changed?
ICANN has pretty much ignored the issue of ccTLDs until a report by Garth was read at Sydney, which caused a large, nasty backlash, followed by an RFP from ICANN to do a study on the ccTLDs.
What does this mean? What report at Sydney? What RFP? What is the "issue of ccTLDs"? I am frankly at a loss what this refers to, and I say this as ICANN staff predominantly working on ccTLD issues now for years.
Some of this group's members do not understand some details, so those people should read up a little bit before saying things. For example, the IANA list of contacts for ccTLDs is way out of date and is inaccurate in many cases. This ought to be fixed before anyone uses it as a source.
Fixed how? 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?
The fact that some countries use US resources as a backup does not change the other facts that several US citizens run ccTLDs from the US. It merely shows a lack of transparency, as well as a messy bit of bookkeeping - which should be fixed. (It is not only US citizens, but citizens from other countries - not the ccTLD country -who run the ccTLD).
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?
This is a serious problem that should not be ignored, as it has been for years.
What would you like to see? ICANN prohibit countries from using resources outside their country from being involved in operating their ccTLD? While there are a few historical anomalies (I believe all well and truly pre-date ICANN), such arrangements are with the consent and endorsement of the relevant stakeholders in the country. To take a recent scenario, the ccTLD for Montenegro .ME. Registry operations there have been outsourced, but it is with the explicit endorsement of the relevant folks within the country. Policy and administrative operations are conducted by the Montenegro Government and the University of Montenegro. What is the issue here? kim