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

On 5/10/09 6:27 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

No, it is the difference between the official government -- you know, the one that prints money, staffs embassies, provides social services and makes the laws -- and a vaguely-defined, easily gamed, self-appointed set of experts that have, amongst their ranks, self-interested businesses and individuals that by and large represent Internet suppliers rather than end-users.

It is presumptuous and meddling of ICANN to determine that any body within a country has equal decision-making authority to the sovereign government of that country, or that an impass between them may allows the status quo to continue in contravention of sovereign law or regulation.

Hang on a moment. We are not talking about the situation where a country has a specific law on the books. In such cases, the government has the remedies available to it within the country to enforce those laws. The reason for the requirement that the sponsoring organisation and administrative contact to be in the country is precisely so they are bound under local law. They are not the kind of requests that are disputed. We are talking about the situation where some element of a government is expressing opinion on how the domain should be run. (As a side note, often governments are not cohesive and ICANN receives conflicting requests from different parts of the government.)

ICANN has erred -- seriously -- in identifying an "Internet community" as being distinct from the general public when it comes to policy making. In most

s/general public/government/, no? Or are you saying the general public is equal to the government?

Can you imagine the absolute outrage that would ensue if ICANN adopted the same approach towards trademark squatters? "We will allow the status quo to stand until the domain owners work it out with the name owners". Yeah, right. If anything, the trademark lobby is pushing for even more draconian, faster takedowns than before. Yet for ccTLDs, "they gotta work it out". What a joke.

Most people seem to agree that ccTLD disputes are to be sorted out in the country.

Not all other factors. As I said, technical stability and security is ICANN's mandate, and it should disallow transferral of a ccTLD to a technically incompetent or unstable entity. But beyond that -- yeah, to hell with othert factors. From where did ICANN attain authority to determine what "other factors" -- beyond its ONLY mandate of  technical "safety and security" -- matter?

The only things we check for are directly from that IANA principles that pre-date ICANN. ICANN hasn't added anything new to the mix that I am aware of, and practically all the criteria staff ask an applicant to talk to are direct cites from RFC 1591, published in 1994.

Anything beyond simply fulfilling government requests (save for the technical issues) is inappropriate meddling. It is not getting in the middle to have a policy that simply says "a sovereighn country is also and always sovereign over its ccTLD".

I think that is perfectly valid input if you want the policy to be that. Like I said the ccNSO intends to work on the issue soon.

In today's world, that is grotequely bad policy, and ICANN long ago abandoned it regarding disputes over second-level domains. Some folks here appear to worship Jon Postel, but  if that was his point of view (wrt government claims to ccTLDs) I'd contend that it has done a lot of damage to the Net (and ICANN). Quoting him does not make the policy any less grotesque.

I am just noting that ICANN has inherited a set of principles which is what we perform our research against today. There has never been a PDP to formally set anything to supersede current practice, but it appears that may be about to change. kim

On 6/10/09 12:24 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

I am saying that, even in non-democratic regimes, a government represents the interest of its (Internet-using) publlc more than its "Internet community" ever will. ... ICANN is within its rights to refuse transfer of a ccTLD to a "registry" just started by the Supreme Leader's cousin.

How are you drawing the distinction between a non-democratic regime making an appointment, and... a non-democratic regime making an appointment?

I reject your assertion, unless you just mean "most people that you hear from". It stands to reason that the vested interests would assert their squatters' rights to ICANN, but that the general public (which is uninterested or ignorant of ICANN policy) is silent to you.

Maybe. But I would have thought IANA has a fairly good lens on the public as that is usually where they naturally go to lodge their complaints about their how their TLD is managed. It is where governments go to express their views. I think I am exposed to a great deal of the dynamics of these situations. I do kind of resent the implication that I have no sense of the general public views. My introduction to the TLD arena was as an Internet user in Australia that wanted .AU to be managed better. Through a process in the mid-1990s I was part of a community group that created an organisation to run the domain. That failed, and we tried again, which succeeded. I was an inaugural "demand" director (equivalent of "at large"). We went through the process of encouraging the Australian Government to get involved, and in 2000 went through the process of convincing ICANN to do a redelegation.

Consider that this is the first time you've participated in this At-Large list on the subject, and I don't see many here rushing to defend the position of letting governments and ccTLD squatters "sort it out". So far, 100% of the opinion I've seen here -- from people who are not ICANN staff -- is that the government has primary rights and there is nothing to "sort out". I would

I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from people in countries in western countries with stable governments, for which these kinds of cases where the government is totally out of sync simply don't happen. I think it would be unfair to claim any consensus denoted by silence is broadly reflective of the Internet users who deal with the kinds of issues we are referencing. kim

2009/10/6 Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>

On 6/10/09 12:24 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

I am saying that, even in non-democratic regimes, a government represents

the

...

interest of its (Internet-using) publlc more than its "Internet community" ever will. ... ICANN is within its rights to refuse transfer of a ccTLD to a "registry" just started by the Supreme Leader's cousin.

How are you drawing the distinction between a non-democratic regime making an appointment, and... a non-democratic regime making an appointment?

Technical competence and stability of the would-be registry and nothing more.

I do kind of resent the implication that I have no sense of the general public views. My introduction to the TLD arena was as an Internet user in Australia that wanted .AU to be managed better. Through a process in the mid-1990s I was part of a community group that created an organisation to run the domain. That failed, and we tried again, which succeeded. I was an inaugural "demand" director (equivalent of "at large"). We went through the process of encouraging the Australian Government to get involved, and in 2000 went through the process of convincing ICANN to do a redelegation.

I am not disputing your commitment to the issue. However, if you assert that "most people" are in favour of allowing ccTLD squatters to remain in place untill they reach a mutual agreement with the sovereign government (as opposed to immediately recognizing government authority), I would suggest that you may be out of touch when considering the public at-large (and not just the self-interested "Internet community" of contracted parties, domainers and consultants). This has been your first experience with At-Large, the only 'constituency' that ICANN had to identify, subsidize, and be the subject of significant outreach. We have, by definition, no self-interest in Internet issues. And here you are finding extremely little backing for a point of view you say is supported by "most people". I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from

people in countries in western countries with stable governments, for which these kinds of cases where the government is totally out of sync simply don't happen. I think it would be unfair to claim any consensus denoted by silence is broadly reflective of the Internet users who deal with the kinds of issues we are referencing.

I am simply referring to your comment of what "most people" say. You certainly have not achieve such consensus in At-Large, so you are not entitled to make that claim in this context. As for your other assertions... Canada currently has a minority government, has had four elections since 2000 and just dodged a threat of another this year. Myanmar has had essentially the same regime in place since 1962. Stability is in the eye of the beholder. The point is, it is not up to ICANN to make any judgment calls other than purely technical. ICANN is not a savior of free speech on the Internet, nor is it qualified in any way to speak on (let alone judge) the legitimacy of governments. Your point of view is indicative of the awfully misguided mission creep that has led ICANN so badly astray. Positions such as yours make it impossible for ICANN to serve as the purely technical body it was designed to be, because -- in sitting in judgment of whether regimes are "worthy" of asserting authority over their country's ccTLD, -- you have dragged ICANN into a political realm in which it has neither mandate nor skill. I am fairly new within ICANN and obviously still learning. When we had a skirmish at the Cairo meeting because some free-speech activists wanted a soapbox, I was adamant that ICANN was not meant to involved in national politics or anti-government advocacy. Apparently I was wrong. - Evan

Over the last ten years, governments and private enterprise have come together to make workable arrangements on how to manage their ccTLDs. This has been a long and sometimes difficult path, and yet the ccTLD area, once one of the most contentious in ICANN, is now largely quiescent and most people are happy. Your view of government control is not supported by the U.S. government, nor by any European government that I know of, nor indeed of any government that I've had the pleasure of working with. If you look at the GAC principles, which were composed by the governments of the world, they speak of a tripartite understanding between ccTLD operators, ICANN, and governments. The most extreme authoritarian dictator has not called for the level of totalitarian control that you seem to espouse.

I am not disputing your commitment to the issue. However, if you assert that "most people" are in favour of allowing ccTLD squatters to remain in place untill they reach a mutual agreement with the sovereign government (as opposed to immediately recognizing government authority), I would suggest that you may be out of touch when considering the public at-large (and not just the self-interested "Internet community" of contracted parties, domainers and consultants).

This has been your first experience with At-Large, the only 'constituency' that ICANN had to identify, subsidize, and be the subject of significant outreach. We have, by definition, no self-interest in Internet issues. And here you are finding extremely little backing for a point of view you say is supported by "most people".

I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from

...

people in countries in western countries with stable governments, for which these kinds of cases where the government is totally out of sync simply don't happen. I think it would be unfair to claim any consensus denoted by silence is broadly reflective of the Internet users who deal with the kinds of issues we are referencing.

I am simply referring to your comment of what "most people" say. You certainly have not achieve such consensus in At-Large, so you are not entitled to make that claim in this context.

As for your other assertions... Canada currently has a minority government, has had four elections since 2000 and just dodged a threat of another this year. Myanmar has had essentially the same regime in place since 1962. Stability is in the eye of the beholder.

The point is, it is not up to ICANN to make any judgment calls other than purely technical. ICANN is not a savior of free speech on the Internet, nor is it qualified in any way to speak on (let alone judge) the legitimacy of governments.

Your point of view is indicative of the awfully misguided mission creep that has led ICANN so badly astray. Positions such as yours make it impossible for ICANN to serve as the purely technical body it was designed to be, because -- in sitting in judgment of whether regimes are "worthy" of asserting authority over their country's ccTLD, -- you have dragged ICANN into a political realm in which it has neither mandate nor skill.

I am fairly new within ICANN and obviously still learning. When we had a skirmish at the Cairo meeting because some free-speech activists wanted a soapbox, I was adamant that ICANN was not meant to involved in national politics or anti-government advocacy. Apparently I was wrong.

- Evan ------ 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 ------

Evan had earlier said that there was little support on this list for the current collaborative way of working. I was just about to speak up and say that I, for one, support what has been happening. But Antony said it far better, and with more direct knowledge, that I could have. Going into this discussion, I had a fair amount of knowledge, both direct and indirect, of how the process works when there is a "difference of opinion". And I learned more from Kim and Antony's early posts here. The only complaint that I have heard about the process (in the real world, not on this list) is that it can take a LONG time, not that it was not fair or that the outcomes were inappropriate. Yes, there may be glitches along the way. And if the .MD operator says on their home page that only their invoices should be honoured and then immediately redirects any registration requests to a US company, perhaps someone should make sure that this is intentional and not a hijacking (although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business). Back to the original discussion, having the authority for a ccTLD unilaterally changed on what might be the potentially knee-jerk reaction of a government is potentially VERY harmful to the "operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet" - ICANN's Core Value # 1. Just try to imagine how all of the second level domains (and their associated information) that are currently operating on the ccTLD get migrated to the new authority. I find it hard to imagine that uses within the country or the world would be well served by the authority for a ccTLD being transferred in a disruptive manner. And transfer in a non-disruptive manner requires at least some measure of cooperation. So ICANN's role is not to act as a political arbitrator within sovereign nations. But its role IS is to try to ensure that ccTLDs operate with stability and predictability. To date, it has a pretty good track record of doing this. Although a review and possible change in the process is welcome, I should be done based on careful understanding of the overall environment. Alan At 06/10/2009 12:00 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

Over the last ten years, governments and private enterprise have come together to make workable arrangements on how to manage their ccTLDs. This has been a long and sometimes difficult path, and yet the ccTLD area, once one of the most contentious in ICANN, is now largely quiescent and most people are happy.

Your view of government control is not supported by the U.S. government, nor by any European government that I know of, nor indeed of any government that I've had the pleasure of working with. If you look at the GAC principles, which were composed by the governments of the world, they speak of a tripartite understanding between ccTLD operators, ICANN, and governments. The most extreme authoritarian dictator has not called for the level of totalitarian control that you seem to espouse.

On 6/10/09 8:47 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from people in countries in western countries with stable governments

Well, this is the North American region discussion area, so that stands to reason. If you prefer to try to sell ICANN's interventionist ccTLD policy on the global At-Large list, I'll see you there...

Perhaps your reaction to me is because you think I am trying to "sell" something here. I am not advocating the current approach is necessarily the correct approach, I am trying to inform you on how it is done, and how it came to be, and what some of the corner cases are. The current set of practices ICANN has inherited, and there has been no PDP to actually formalise policy on this stuff - so we rely on precedent, and the principles discussed in RFC 1591. I think some of what are seen as quick fix solutions would have been done a long time ago if it were really that simple, but the reality is by thinking through the consequences they will have undesirable impacts on Internet stability.

Your point of view is indicative of the awfully misguided mission creep that has led ICANN so badly astray.

I think to fulfil your vision of things, ten years ago ICANN would have had to make an explicit break from previous practice and said "from now on, we only listen to governments". I don't see how that would have gone down well. I don't see at all how today's practice illustrates a "mission creep" - if anything government's views carry more weight today than they did prior to ICANN involvement, reflecting the greater level of engagement most governments have in Internet matters compared to the 1980s and 1990s. kim