Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
It may have the blessing of the Moldovan Gov't but some of it's citizens may not appreciate the transfer especially if it is being misused and they get nothing for it and don't have access to it. If someone sold my birthright I wouldn't be happy. Yes, each ccTLD gov't can do what they want it, but when goes to the .LA root site and can't even discern the original intent of the ccTLD, hasn't it lost its meaning? I'm of the belief that the ccTLDs are best used when used by their own people and controlled by their own governments, you disagree? I'm trying to start with a full accounting of the ccTLD ownership and accountability. I realize there are many people out there who don't want to discuss the issue.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Date: Sun, October 04, 2009 2:29 pm To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
It's a little difficult to know where to start with Mr. Bruen's list -- it's wrong in several significant ways.
.MD has been run by a group blessed by the Moldovan Gov't since 2003. http://iana.org/reports/2003/md-report-22oct03.html
.LA, while sold as "Los Angeles" (not very successfully) is run by Laotian Gov't. Presumably, they can do what they want with it, including selling it to Angelinos. http://iana.org/domains/root/db/la.html
Assuming that a secondary DNS server located in the U.S. doesn't mean that the TLD is "run from" the U.S., then just about all of the names on this list are wrong. Some on the list have no connection at all to the U.S. -- .AL - Albania, the first on the list, is an example.
On the other hand, if "run from" means that the registry operations are fully or partially located in the U.S., then there are some missing. Curiously, these missing ones have a theme -- they are run by large registry incumbents:
-- The ccTLDs for whom Afilias provides registry services are missing (e.g., .MN, .VC) -- see http://www.afilias-grs.info/public/homepage -- The ccTLDs for whom Neustar provides registry services are missing (e.g., .US, .CO). -- The ccTLDs for whom VeriSign provices registry services are missing (e.g., .TV, .CC).
Even the provision of registry services by these U.S.-based companies does not mean that they are "run" from the U.S. It just means that a piece of technical infrastructure has been outsourced to them.
Mr. Bruen's list is almost a mirror image of the reality. There is no U.S. involvement in .CU (Cuba). There is no U.S. involvement in .LI (Liechtenstein). Or .NA (Namibia). The list goes on and on. This can be verified by going through the IANA database, looking at who the contacts are where the nameservers are. http://iana.org/domains/root/db/
Antony Van Couvering
On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
Thanks Danny,
There are many ccTLDs not directly controlled by the actual country, some by choice, but maybe not if their citizens knew the whole story.
Among the more egregious examples are Moldova (.MD) which is run by someone in New Jersey and used to market "medical professional" sites and Laos (.LA) which is used as the TLD for "Los Angeles", go the the .LA root site and there is nothing about Laos rather traffic and weather for Los Angeles.
List of ccTLDs completely or partly run from the U.S.:
Albania (.al) Andorra (.ad) Antarctica (.aq) Armenia (.am) Azerbaijan (.az) Bahamas (.bs) Botswana (.bw) Canada (.ca) Catalonia (.cat) Central African Republic (.cf) Chile (.cl) Christmas Island (.cx) Costa Rica (.cr) Cuba (.cu) Cyprus (.cy) East Timor(.tl) Egypt (.eg) Fiji (.fj) Ghana (.gh) Guinea (.gn) Guyana (.gy) Haiti (.ht) Heard Island and McDonald Islands (.hm) Hong Kong (.hk) Iceland (.is) Israel (.il) Kiribati (.ki) Lebanon (.lb) Lesotho (.ls) Lesotho (.ls) Liberia (.lr) Liechtenstein (.li) Malawi (.mw) Maldives (.mv) Mali (.ml) Malta (.mt) Mauritius (.mu) Moldova (.md) Montserrat (.ms) Namibia (.na) Nauru (.nr) Nepal (.np) Netherlands (.nl) Nigeria (.ng) Palestine (.ps) Philippines (.ph) Pitcairn Islands (.pn) Portugal (.pt) Puerto Rico (.pr) Saudi Arabia (.sa) Serbia (.rs) Solomon Islands (.sb) South Africa (.za) South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (.gs) Sri Lanka (.lk) Swaziland (.sz) Switzerland (.ch) Tanzania (.tz) Thailand (.th) Trinidad and Tobago (.tt) Tunisia (.tn) Ukraine (.ua) United Arab Emirates (.ae) Uruguay (.uy) Venezuela (.ve)
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 7:15 am To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[excerpted from the governance list]
LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation
To the international community
By this note, we would like to inform the international community about the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by RDS-HN, associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about this situation.
The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must hand over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of the Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that "CONATEL controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to take the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and IP addresses can be executed through from other public or private institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the corresponding regulations will be issued."
Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, CONATEL has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has been managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of Article 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of new domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of domains .HN and records, that the institution have been conferred, to CONATEL."
The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development Network) http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since April 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, in July 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf), which explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, RDS is also a leading civil society organization that facilitates connectivity to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, RDS is being recognized as a pioneer in the region.
The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally accepted and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because of the stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD work, RDS is due to its local and international community on the Internet.
In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out CONATEL is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the relationship that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and is based on existing contractual agreements and relationships.
LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that have unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to take in a sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it will be detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet resources.
LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily seeks to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the correct running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail between two sides in order to solve this delicate situation.
Sincerely,
Council of LACTLD Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: Yes, each ccTLD gov't can do what they want it, I disagree. Why do you think governments have free reign over their ccTLDs? It seems at odds with the usual scenario of multi-stakeholder participatory management of most ccTLDs. but when goes to the .LA root site What is a root site? I'm trying to start with a full accounting of the ccTLD ownership and accountability. I realize there are many people out there who don't want to discuss the issue. I don't think there are many people who wouldn't want the issue discussed. I think, however, such a discussion has to be based on reasonable facts. Perhaps you can start the discussion by explaining the genesis of your list. In what material way do you think .CA and .NL, to take a couple of examples, belong on such a list? Why do you think the location of a secondary name server is noteworthy? Given it is considered best practice to have geographically diverse authoritative name servers on multiple continents, I'm surprised and would appreciate your insight. kim
Why do you think governments have free reign over their ccTLDs?
Hmmn. Can you identify any occasion when ICANN or its predecessors ever refused to make a change a government wanted to make to the management of its TLD? (I don't know if they turned down changes that were technically impossible, e.g., DNS records with syntax errors or delegation to name servers that didn't exist, but we can ignore those if they happened.) Jon Postel set that precedent for Haiti in 1997, and it hasn't changed since. R's, John
At around the time ICANN was created, I helped form the International Association of Top-Level Domains. Its aim was to assist local ccTLD operators against the predations of governments, who typically did not know anything about TLDs, but wanted control. At one point we had over 80 ccTLDs give their explicit support of our stand to honor RFC 1591 and to reject what seemed like ICANN's shift toward government control, embodied in ICANN's IPC-1. We stressed the performance of the ccTLD operator in serving the local Internet community, instead of focusing on "sovereignty" and "rights" as the Governmental Advisory Committee liked to do. (See, for instance, the third item in this 1998 news summary that I dug up: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~lao/laonews/old/111198.txt ) Over the years, we had some gains, and made comments on ICANN issues of the day that affected our members. See for instance http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/rfc/dns_comments/rfc3/0171.htm... . In the end, the governments asked for and received a greater role, but they also learned much better what that role should be, and understood that ICANN had a larger mandate than to do their bidding. Governments learned that TLDs are not like national telephone systems, which are run at a national level, typically as a monopoly. Instead, TLDs are a global resource with special responsibility for the local Internet community, and the Internet itself is a network of private networks, not a government installation. From my role in the IATLD and my other work on behalf of ccTLDs (and more recently, my observation from afar), I know first- and second- hand that ICANN does not always bend to the will of governments, especially when there is someone who is doing a good job running the TLD ICANN tries very hard to get the people in the dispute to work something out. They also understand that things change -- one political party ousts the other, and so the ccTLD operator who entered a good-faith agreement with the previous government might find themselves viewed as enemies by the new administration. In such a climate, and with ICANN's mandate to preserve stability and security, it would be silly (not to mention unfair) to redelegate constantly, and so they don't. ICANN does a decent job here under difficult circumstances. They make mistakes (the .PN redelegation was a joke), but on the whole they do not just jump when governments say jump. In answer to John's question, I know of several ccTLDs who survived government challenges to their authority -- check out the battles over .PH, for example. These things are typically delicate, so I'll let the ccTLD operators speak for themselves if they want to, but it's simply not true that ICANN is a lackey to arbitrary government action. There are lots of things to complain about in ICANN, and many areas that deserve more criticism than ICANN's relations with TLD operators, which have steadily improved since its founding. Antony Van Couvering On Oct 4, 2009, at 5:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Why do you think governments have free reign over their ccTLDs?
Hmmn. Can you identify any occasion when ICANN or its predecessors ever refused to make a change a government wanted to make to the management of its TLD? (I don't know if they turned down changes that were technically impossible, e.g., DNS records with syntax errors or delegation to name servers that didn't exist, but we can ignore those if they happened.)
Jon Postel set that precedent for Haiti in 1997, and it hasn't changed since.
R's, John
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 4/10/09 4:15 PM, "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
At one point we had over 80 ccTLDs give their explicit support of our stand to honor RFC 1591 and to reject what seemed like ICANN's shift toward government control, embodied in ICANN's IPC-1.
Just to clarify the record. Any shift toward 'governmental control' predates ICANN. There is not a single word in ICP-1 that was not derived from the pre-ICANN era, and the solitary sentence on the role of governments is from Jon Postel. Language lawyers may be interested in the attached comparison, extracted from a draft document I am in the process of writing. kim
Kim is correct as to the language, but the ramifications of the changes invoked intense feelings at the time. Small as they were, the changes were seen as very significant. At the time, especially with the introduction of the GAC, the relative levels of trust by ccTLD managers for the late Jon Postel on the one hand (high trust), and ICANN and the GAC on the other (low trust), could hardly have been more opposite. The idea that RFC 1591 needed to be restated at all, and the fact that ICANN had decided that it could issue unilateral policy, even if they were called clarifications or updates, seemed quite suspect to many. Why this new-fangled IPC, why not another RFC? Why was no-one consulted? (I'm sure there were people who were consulted, it's just that none of them were the ccTLD managers I knew, which was a lot of them.) These were the questions on people's lips. Furthermore, ICANN, which had been created by fiat by the US government, and whose board was chosen by a process which remains shadowy to this day, supplanted an earlier effort, the gTLD-MoU, which for all its faults very specifically did not govern ccTLDs at all. So this ICANN, this new organization, was suddenly given a broad remit which had expanded to include country codes, and the first thing the ccTLD managers saw from ICANN was a document which "clarified" RFC 1591. The explanation from ICANN was never very convincing -- Mike Roberts explained that it changed nothing, but could not offer much of an explanation of why, if it changed nothing, it was needed at all. And in fact it was precisely that sentence from the ccTLD News #1, about the role of governments, that was for the ccTLD audience the most significant change. It is not too difficult to imagine why there was some paranoia. Remember also that at the venue where IPC-1 was first explained to the ccTLD managers-- at the Berlin ICANN meeting -- Paul Twomey, then the newly-minted head of the GAC, gave some frightening answers to questions after his maiden speech, in which he declared, among other things, that even if a government was an international disgrace (Pol Pot's Cambodia was the example), it had all rights to do whatever it liked with a ccTLD, and that a government was, by virtue of its control of its territory, de facto and de jure legitimate and its decisions beyond appeal. He also compared ICANN to the Treaty of Versailles, which he reckoned was a great success. It was as if, for Twomey, the consequence of Treaty of Versailles -- World War II -- could not detract from his admiration of it. And this was the man who would guide the GAC, which it appeared had just been given a great deal of power by ICANN and IPC-1. It was all a bit surreal and very tense. As I said, at that time the confidence level was extremely low.... It appeared to many that things could have taken a very quick turn for the worse. Happily they did not. Antony On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Kim Davies wrote:
On 4/10/09 4:15 PM, "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
At one point we had over 80 ccTLDs give their explicit support of our stand to honor RFC 1591 and to reject what seemed like ICANN's shift toward government control, embodied in ICANN's IPC-1.
Just to clarify the record. Any shift toward 'governmental control' predates ICANN. There is not a single word in ICP-1 that was not derived from the pre-ICANN era, and the solitary sentence on the role of governments is from Jon Postel.
Language lawyers may be interested in the attached comparison, extracted from a draft document I am in the process of writing.
kim
<1591vicp1.pdf>
On 4/10/09 2:30 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Hmmn. Can you identify any occasion when ICANN or its predecessors ever refused to make a change a government wanted to make to the management of its TLD? (I don't know if they turned down changes that were technically impossible, e.g., DNS records with syntax errors or delegation to name servers that didn't exist, but we can ignore those if they happened.)
I'd go further, and estimate that the majority of cases where a government has come to ICANN and asked to transfer the country's ccTLD to them - it has not resulted in a change. For the sake of argument we can loosely bundle governments into two camps - those who are familiar with the workings of ICANN and ccTLD principles, and those who aren't. For the latter, they will often assume that the policy is that upon their request we simply transfer the domain however they desire. When ICANN gets such requests, they are advised of the policies and requirements, which include substantive engagement and relevant consensus within the local Internet community. Many governments, once aware of this, will not pursue it any further. Others will rethink, and sometimes then engender a proper community dialogue. In some cases the governments then facilitated a process, usually over a few years, which later resulted in a successful redelegation to some trustee (usually some non-profit in the community) through a process the government helped spur. Now clearly the government wanted this to occur, it doesn't make it wrong. I wouldn't suggest it is a problem if the government wants to be involved, just that what they are proposing is in the public interest. DNS records with syntax errors, etc. do not sink redelegation requests, because it is usually a shift to a new entity who probably hasn't configured the zone at the time of assessment. Bear in mind in a redelegation, the transfer will only happen after ICANN approval, so ICANN can hardly expect a fully functional registry operation up-and-running without any guarantee the ICANN Board will approve the request. The kinds of technical evaluation that happen in these cases are more to do with their technical plans, staff expertise, the registry platform they intend to deploy and so forth. It is less to do with checking the function of NS records. kim
participants (4)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Garth Bruen at KnujOn -
John R. Levine -
Kim Davies