Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
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 ------
Garth: What does it mean that the ccTLD's are completely or partly run from the U.S? Are you referring to the hardware equipment or the actual administration of the ccTLD business, or boths? In the case of Puerto Rico everything is done under the jurisdiction of the US for our political relationship with them. Can you clarify the other?. Thanks. -ed On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com>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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
I concur. This list is useless without some definition of what is being included. I would be shocked if the definition is anything like what reasonable people would consider as being run int he US.The vast majority on this list are run wholly in their country, so I can only imagine the criteria for being on this list as being something substantially overreaching. Perhaps the definition of "run from the US" is merely having one of the authoritative name servers in the USA, or that they have accredited a registrar that is based in the USA. Also, FWIW, .cat is not a ccTLD, and does not represent Catalonia. kim On Oct 4, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Garth:
What does it mean that the ccTLD's are completely or partly run from the U.S? Are you referring to the hardware equipment or the actual administration of the ccTLD business, or boths?
In the case of Puerto Rico everything is done under the jurisdiction of the US for our political relationship with them.
Can you clarify the other?. Thanks.
-ed
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com
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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. ------ 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 ------
What does it mean that the ccTLD's are completely or partly run from the U.S? Are you referring to the hardware equipment or the actual administration of the ccTLD business, or boths?
It appears to include any TLD that has a mirror DNS server in the U.S. I agree that's not very useful. R's, John PS:
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.
Lots of small countries have sold their ccTLDs for use as vanity domains. Don't forget .TV .CC .CX .ME .NU and .WS. It's not a particularly great idea, but the principle that countries can do what they want with their ccTLDs has been well established for about two decades.
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 ------
It is at times like this that I am reminded of the prayer attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr: "God give us grace, to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other." Even if you're an atheist, that quotation would appear to apply here. There are many, myself included, who believe that ICANN has engaged in significant feature creep from what what was supposed to be mainly a technical co-ordinating body. One could easily argue that the ccTLD world has good reason to want itself outside the bounds of at least some of ICANN's various power plays. It has an interest in ICANN policy related to registrars, but not in oversight over matters that are arguably of national sovereignty. I personally have zero taste in fighting governments' claim of ownership of their respsective ccTLDs. That some ccTLDs have been acting as generics is nothing new -- or should I say nothing *.nu*? That, along with .tv, .fm, .to and quite a few others, have been doing this for quite a while, with the blessing of those countries' governments. Unlike with gTLDs, their number is relatively stable -- while new ones are added from time to time thanks to geopolitical shift, the process for dealing with ccTLDs for no-longer-existing countries is confused and apparently jurisdiction-free (witness the state of* .su*). So if there are new efforts to monetize ccTLDs by selling them to non-nationals (*.me* appears merely the latest attempt), our efforts within ICANN to affect this are minimal if they are done with government approval. Certainly ICANN has no political or moral authority to go against the express wish of a government for assignment of its TLD operator, so long as they have the technical issues right. (I would not consider location of the registry outside of the ccTLD country, on its own, to constitute abuse.) Now... Garth came in to NARALO as a fighter of domain abuse, and it is reasonable that we want to investigate domain abuse in ccTLDs just as within the generics. (Certainly most of the general public is not aware of the distinctions beyond the obvious ones of identity, and arguably much of the abuse within ccTLDs happens at the registrant and registrar level.) If we cannot directly influence policy on ccTLDs through ICANN, we can certainly produce educational and other materials that would help indicate to potential registrants how various ccTLD policies affect them. And if some ccTLDs either encourage or tolerate bad actors more than others, we may have a role to play here. It is surprising to me how many new voices are heard from on this issue, voices that have said barely anything else on other NARALO issues that are arguably more important. Having said that, perhaps there is something constructive that may come of this. Would the people involved in this discussion be interested in producing some kind of research on ccTLD abuse?It is clear that At-Large's mandate covers all aspects of ICANN operation, which differentiates us from, say, NCUC's role in GNSO. So if we have something to say about something that ICANN should do, or that ICANN should not do in this regard, let's do it. If not, let's move on to the things in which we *do* have a role to play. - Evan
So from all this discussion, I gathered that ICANN do not have anything to say about ccTLD abuse. Is this true? -ed On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
It is at times like this that I am reminded of the prayer attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr:
"God give us grace, to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
Even if you're an atheist, that quotation would appear to apply here.
There are many, myself included, who believe that ICANN has engaged in significant feature creep from what what was supposed to be mainly a technical co-ordinating body. One could easily argue that the ccTLD world has good reason to want itself outside the bounds of at least some of ICANN's various power plays. It has an interest in ICANN policy related to registrars, but not in oversight over matters that are arguably of national sovereignty. I personally have zero taste in fighting governments' claim of ownership of their respsective ccTLDs.
That some ccTLDs have been acting as generics is nothing new -- or should I say nothing *.nu*? That, along with .tv, .fm, .to and quite a few others, have been doing this for quite a while, with the blessing of those countries' governments. Unlike with gTLDs, their number is relatively stable -- while new ones are added from time to time thanks to geopolitical shift, the process for dealing with ccTLDs for no-longer-existing countries is confused and apparently jurisdiction-free (witness the state of* .su*).
So if there are new efforts to monetize ccTLDs by selling them to non-nationals (*.me* appears merely the latest attempt), our efforts within ICANN to affect this are minimal if they are done with government approval. Certainly ICANN has no political or moral authority to go against the express wish of a government for assignment of its TLD operator, so long as they have the technical issues right. (I would not consider location of the registry outside of the ccTLD country, on its own, to constitute abuse.)
Now... Garth came in to NARALO as a fighter of domain abuse, and it is reasonable that we want to investigate domain abuse in ccTLDs just as within the generics. (Certainly most of the general public is not aware of the distinctions beyond the obvious ones of identity, and arguably much of the abuse within ccTLDs happens at the registrant and registrar level.) If we cannot directly influence policy on ccTLDs through ICANN, we can certainly produce educational and other materials that would help indicate to potential registrants how various ccTLD policies affect them. And if some ccTLDs either encourage or tolerate bad actors more than others, we may have a role to play here.
It is surprising to me how many new voices are heard from on this issue, voices that have said barely anything else on other NARALO issues that are arguably more important. Having said that, perhaps there is something constructive that may come of this. Would the people involved in this discussion be interested in producing some kind of research on ccTLD abuse?It is clear that At-Large's mandate covers all aspects of ICANN operation, which differentiates us from, say, NCUC's role in GNSO. So if we have something to say about something that ICANN should do, or that ICANN should not do in this regard, let's do it. If not, let's move on to the things in which we *do* have a role to play.
- 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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
Disclaimer: I speak for me and me only. These are my personal opinions. I was around in the early days of the Internet creation and remember some of what was said and what happened. It sounds like (from the emails) that only a few others were also there, most have come to the table much later. As one example of early day change that happened, .com was supposed to be for commercial entities only and you had to have a machine connected (or ready to be connected) to the network to get a domain name. That changed pretty suddenly as people saw the potential money to be made. In the same light, ccTLDs were an attempt to provide countries with their own piece of the Internet, not as a commodity to be sold. The ccTLDs were handed out to those who understood what was coming, which was not always the governments. Individuals got control of many ccTLDs, many of which still keep control. The intent, which I believe is correct, is that each country would get their own .xx.. Like it or not, this is an issue of national sovereignty. I also believe that this feeds directly into the issue of local languages being available on the net. If *.yy were controlled by the local country of yy, all the sites on .yy could be in the language of yy. Seems like a no-brainer. This should be a priority issue for us, in spite of other issues of importance. 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. If it belongs to the country, the country should get control of it. 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. 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. The backlash on this mailing list is similar. My opinion is that there are people set to lose money, so they are doing what they can to silence discussion and sunshine. There are also people who are trying to keep the status quo for personal reasons. Just to be clear, I believe that the Internet's first priority is that of a public good and profits second. It appears that a strong constituency believes the inverse, which will do and say whatever to discredit anyone questioning them. (And yes, I can give names and events involving me, if you want - contact me off list) I would be happy if every country in the world would make sure that they were in control of their own ccTLD. Sorry about the others who took advantage of the lack of understanding and exploited these countries in the early days. Now the countries seem to get it, thus should take back control. I am also sorry that some countries are run by horrible people, but that is a political issue for governments to work on. Perhaps routing from a country could become a sanction... 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. 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 is a serious problem that should not be ignored, as it has been for years. --bob bruen
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
I have tried to provide some resources and some clarity for those whose reading ability has been clouded by emotions or agendas. This is a real issue that requires real thought with real consequences. I do not expect total agreement, but a little respect might be nice. Understanding a point of view does not imply agreement. --bob ======================================================================== The first question of examples: Here is where the ccTLD agreements (with numerous names for different types) are located: http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/agreements.html One specific example, although there are lots: This one was signed on Sept 2, 2009 by Rod Beckstrom: http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/ua/ua-icann-letters-02sep09-en.pdf The agreement is with Communications Systems Ltd. Dmitry Kohmanyuk PO Box 99 Kyiv 01033 Ukraine not with the government of Ukraine. Perhaps, Ukraine has delegated the running of its ccTLD to Mr. Kohmanyuk, but I have not found a document that states that from the Ukrainian government. One of my fixes to the IANA list would include a link to each government with such a document. It would go a long way to providing credibility and transparency. ======================================================================== The RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-17aug09-en.htm Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) 17 August 20090 The closing date for repsonses has passed. ===================================================================== I I I have put four documents on line for background. There are more, but these are are public, well done and discuss the issues. Let me know if you experience any problems. Youn Park's article is from her doctoral dissertation, which I do not have permission to put on line yet. I have read it and she has done a wonderful job of researching and presenting the issues. Garth's document (The Sydney one) is here as well. http://www.coldrain.net/cctld/cctld.html ========================================================================= IANA list fixes: Accuracy and transparency for starters. Also, as mentioned, links to documents from ccTLD governments giving permission to others to run there ccTLD. One thing that could be done is send an email to each of the contacts on the list to see how many are still valid and to see if they know about who runs their ccTLD. ========================================================================= Kim said: "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?" Bob says: This is clearly sarcasm, not helpful dialogue, but if that is how you wish to deal with the issue, so be it. I have found that there are two types of people at ICANN, those who wish to help fix problems and those that wish to hinder. Pick one. ========================================================================= Kim said: "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?" Bob says: More sarcasm. I did not imply any such thing. I suggest a more careful reading of what I wrote. =========================================================================== Kim said: "What would you like to see? ICANN prohibit countries from using resources outside their country from being involved in operating their ccTLD?" Bob says: And still more sarcasm. Again I suggest reading more carefully. ====================================================================== On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Kim Davies wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:44:40 -0700 Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
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
This is the RFP for a review of the ccNSO, a process that is carried out regularly for all ICANN bodies. In the minutes of the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), it has been mentioned regularly going back to February 2009, and a decision was taken at the beginning of June (prior to Sydney) for staff to provide information to Board to seek formal approval of the ccNSO review working group members. So review was not likely triggered by any specific event in Sydney. Alan At 05/10/2009 03:24 PM, Bob Bruen wrote:
The RFP is here:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-17aug09-en.htm
Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) 17 August 20090
The closing date for repsonses has passed.
Hi, On 5/10/09 12:24 PM, "Bob Bruen" <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
I have tried to provide some resources and some clarity for those whose reading ability has been clouded by emotions or agendas. This is a real issue that requires real thought with real consequences. I do not expect total agreement, but a little respect might be nice. Understanding a point of view does not imply agreement.
I think this goes both ways. I am merely interested in any discussion about ccTLDs stays in the realm of facts. It is never helpful when mailing lists go on a tangent based on some outlandish "facts" like the list of USA-run TLDs that was presented, so I am seeking to ensure that what is being discussed is accurate. I actually happen to disagree with some ICANN policies, but as staff my job is merely to implement them. I am contributing to this thread because if we can do our job better, I would really like to hear it. It is particularly timely to have this discussion because the ccNSO recently chartered a working group to address the delegation rules, and concrete suggestions on how it should be done differently would be excellent input to that process.
The first question of examples: Here is where the ccTLD agreements (with numerous names for different types) are located: One specific example, although there are lots: This one was signed on Sept 2, 2009 by Rod Beckstrom: http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/ua/ua-icann-letters-02sep09-en.pdf
The agreement is with Communications Systems Ltd. Dmitry Kohmanyuk PO Box 99 Kyiv 01033 Ukraine
not with the government of Ukraine. Perhaps, Ukraine has delegated the running of its ccTLD to Mr. Kohmanyuk, but I have not found a document that states that from the Ukrainian government. One of my fixes to the IANA list would include a link to each government with such a document. It would go a long way to providing credibility and transparency.
You are referring to a delegation that happened in 1992. That pre-dates ICANN by six years. I am not going to presuppose what due-diligence went into selecting the .UA operator in 1992, and what level of government engagement was involved. I simply don't know, although I do know that governments typically took little active interest in ccTLD affairs in that era. The document you refer to is not a redelegation, it is an accountability framework. They are not ccTLD transfers. You can find reports of transfers of ccTLDs during the ICANN-era at http://www.iana.org/reports/ Accountability Frameworks are designed for the current operator of a ccTLD tpo spell out their obligations to the community, and ICANN to reciprocate by selling out its obligations. Given the nature of the document I am not sure why you should be executed with a third party (be it the government or some other entity). So, back to your statement that your concern is ICANN assigned ccTLDs "to an individual or company just because they ask for it." The fact that a company is the one that runs a ccTLD doesn't imply there was no due-diligence involved. Please provide an example that suggest this happens.
======================================================================== The RFP is here:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-17aug09-en.htm
Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) 17 August 20090
The closing date for repsonses has passed.
This is the routine ICANN SO/AC review process, that happens with all SOs and ACs. I don't see how this is connected with anything that happened in Sydney.
===================================================================== I I I have put four documents on line for background. There are more, but these are are public, well done and discuss the issues. Let me know if you experience any problems. Youn Park's article is from her doctoral dissertation, which I do not have permission to put on line yet. I have read it and she has done a wonderful job of researching and presenting the issues.
I met with to YJ Park in August and pointed out to a number of substantial errors of fact upon which her analysis is based.
IANA list fixes: Accuracy and transparency for starters. Also, as mentioned, links to documents from ccTLD governments giving permission to others to run there ccTLD. One thing that could be done is send an email to each of the contacts on the list to see how many are still valid and to see if they know about who runs their ccTLD.
To be clear, governments do not have to "give permission" to ICANN for others to run "their" ccTLD. That is not an ICANN requirement. You might find this I wrote last week useful: http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/local-internet-communities/ Furthermore, if .TV is delegated to the Government of Tuvalu (which it is), and they decide to award rights to operate aspects of it to VeriSign (which I believe it has), I don't see ICANN has the capability to obtain that contract and make it public.
========================================================================= Kim said: "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?"
Bob says: This is clearly sarcasm, not helpful dialogue, but if that is how you wish to deal with the issue, so be it. I have found that there are two types of people at ICANN, those who wish to help fix problems and those that wish to hinder. Pick one.
I am not trying to be sarcastic - rather illuminating a specific problem. It is all very well and good to say IANA should have accurate contact details, but what enforcement mechanisms does ICANN have to make it a reality? It does not have contracts with ccTLD operators. It only has the powers of persuasion (which we try to use), and a "nuclear option" in its arsenal. No-one would argue having accurate contact details is desirable, but if one is going to propose useful solutions they need to recognise the reality of TLD operators simply not complying with keeping their details up-to-date. To give you an actual example. We know the administrative contact for a ccTLD is not accurate. It is the former president and he has died. We have spoken to the Government, even met with representatives, and urged them to update their records. They have not decided to do so to date. What steps could ICANN take to remedy the situation?
========================================================================= Kim said: "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?"
Bob says: More sarcasm. I did not imply any such thing. I suggest a more careful reading of what I wrote.
Could you be more explicit what you would like to see then? Apologies if I misunderstood. kim
Hi Kim, On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Kim Davies wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:55:02 -0700 From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> To: Bob Bruen <naralo@coldrain.net> Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
Hi,
On 5/10/09 12:24 PM, "Bob Bruen" <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
....
I am contributing to this thread because if we can do our job better, I would really like to hear it. It is particularly timely to have this discussion because the ccNSO recently chartered a working group to address the delegation rules, and concrete suggestions on how it should be done differently would be excellent input to that process.
I appreciate that approach and believe or not, that is our approach as well.
You are referring to a delegation that happened in 1992. That pre-dates ICANN by six years.
Actually, I am refering to that document signed recently, delegation, or redelegation or not. It was done without the apparent involvement of the Ukranian government. Rod should have insisted on (or published as the case may be) that some legitimate governmental authority be signatory to the agreement (or produced some other document).
I am not going to presuppose what due-diligence went into selecting the .UA operator in 1992, and what level of government engagement was involved. I simply don't know, although I do know that governments typically took little active interest in ccTLD affairs in that era.
Yes, Jon Postel gave away ccTLDs and most governments did not have a clue, but that does not excuse the continued bad behavior, when we all know better now. IANA preceded ICANN and they are still around, under ICANN. Whatever was done in the beginning is ICANN's problem now. I do not believe in a statute of limitations on the granting to ccTLDs to non governmental bodies or individuals. It's a cleanup problem, now.
The document you refer to is not a redelegation, it is an accountability framework. They are not ccTLD transfers. You can find reports of transfers of ccTLDs during the ICANN-era at http://www.iana.org/reports/
Again it does not matter to me about the redelegation. These agreements go by many names, but in the end it is ICANN condoning the arrangement as it stands. There are numerous countries that have outsourced the running of their ccTLDs. I just want it all to be transparent and control returned to the government (like Honduras).
Accountability Frameworks are designed for the current operator of a ccTLD tpo spell out their obligations to the community, and ICANN to reciprocate by selling out its obligations. Given the nature of the document I am not sure why you should be executed with a third party (be it the government or some other entity).
So, back to your statement that your concern is ICANN assigned ccTLDs "to an individual or company just because they ask for it." The fact that a company is the one that runs a ccTLD doesn't imply there was no due-diligence involved. Please provide an example that suggest this happens.
======================================================================== The RFP is here:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-17aug09-en.htm
Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) 17 August 20090
The closing date for repsonses has passed.
This is the routine ICANN SO/AC review process, that happens with all SOs and ACs. I don't see how this is connected with anything that happened in Sydney.
===================================================================== I I I have put four documents on line for background. There are more, but these are are public, well done and discuss the issues. Let me know if you experience any problems. Youn Park's article is from her doctoral dissertation, which I do not have permission to put on line yet. I have read it and she has done a wonderful job of researching and presenting the issues.
I met with to YJ Park in August and pointed out to a number of substantial errors of fact upon which her analysis is based.
IANA list fixes: Accuracy and transparency for starters. Also, as mentioned, links to documents from ccTLD governments giving permission to others to run there ccTLD. One thing that could be done is send an email to each of the contacts on the list to see how many are still valid and to see if they know about who runs their ccTLD.
To be clear, governments do not have to "give permission" to ICANN for others to run "their" ccTLD. That is not an ICANN requirement. You might find this I wrote last week useful: http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/local-internet-communities/
That is not what I said. Let me clarify, I want to see the document in which a government outsources (licenses, contracts, whatever) to another party on the IANA list of ccTLD contacts. The permission involved is when the government gives it. Nothing to do with ICANN, just make it public so everyone can see which government gave it away and which had it taken away.
Furthermore, if .TV is delegated to the Government of Tuvalu (which it is), and they decide to award rights to operate aspects of it to VeriSign (which I believe it has), I don't see ICANN has the capability to obtain that contract and make it public.
I respectfully disagree. ICANN can ask for it or a "letter of assignmnent" (or something) just to keep things transparent. It really protects the government and would prevent the Honduras and Namibia problems.
========================================================================= Kim said: "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?"
Bob says: This is clearly sarcasm, not helpful dialogue, but if that is how you wish to deal with the issue, so be it. I have found that there are two types of people at ICANN, those who wish to help fix problems and those that wish to hinder. Pick one.
I am not trying to be sarcastic - rather illuminating a specific problem. It is all very well and good to say IANA should have accurate contact details, but what enforcement mechanisms does ICANN have to make it a reality? It does not have contracts with ccTLD operators. It only has the powers of persuasion (which we try to use), and a "nuclear option" in its arsenal. No-one would argue having accurate contact details is desirable, but if one is going to propose useful solutions they need to recognise the reality of TLD operators simply not complying with keeping their details up-to-date.
To give you an actual example. We know the administrative contact for a ccTLD is not accurate. It is the former president and he has died. We have spoken to the Government, even met with representatives, and urged them to update their records. They have not decided to do so to date. What steps could ICANN take to remedy the situation?
Well, if you know it is inaccurate and you know (and you might not) the current situation, then fix the record yourself. Urging people to do things doesn't always work, whereas doing it yourself usually does. I know of a situation where an American runs non-USA ccTLDs and his name does not show up anywhere, unless you dig really deeply. If he is legitimate, this should be public and he should be less cranky about it. regards, bob
Bob Bruen wrote:
I was around in the early days of the Internet creation and remember some of what was said and what happened. It sounds like (from the emails) that only a few others were also there, most have come to the table much later. As one example of early day change that happened, .com was supposed to be for commercial entities only and you had to have a machine connected (or ready to be connected) to the network to get a domain name. That changed pretty suddenly as people saw the potential money to be made. In the same light, ccTLDs were an attempt to provide countries with their own piece of the Internet, not as a commodity to be sold.
"Their own piece of the Internet" and "a commodity to be sold" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Unless there were ground rules at the beginning that required registrants in ccTLDs be nationals of the country, the ccTLD operators were free to do as they wanted. I would suggest that the governments of Niue and Tuvalu are not completely disappointed with the deals they made, and other countries have sought to copy the model.
The ccTLDs were handed out to those who understood what was coming, which was not always the governments. Individuals got control of many ccTLDs, many of which still keep control. The intent, which I believe is correct, is that each country would get their own .xx.. Like it or not, this is an issue of national sovereignty.
This is, of course at odds with the original post that started this thread, which defends the operators of the ccTLD operator for Honduras (an NGO) against its goverment's recent attempt to gain control of it.
I also believe that this feeds directly into the issue of local languages being available on the net. If *.yy were controlled by the local country of yy, all the sites on .yy could be in the language of yy. Seems like a no-brainer. This should be a priority issue for us, in spite of other issues of importance.
It's not a no-brainer. Such decisions are up to the individual country. If a country wants a ccTLD in languages other than its own official languages, that's within its total discretion. Saying otherwise is imposing your values on them.
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. If it belongs to the country, the country should get control of it. 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.
Maybe the ccTLD operator for .hn may be more democratic than the government of Honduras, but as you say that's not the point. If governments have ultimate authority about ccTLD deligation, than we can't pass judgment over whether any particular ruling regime is worthy of controlling its country's TLD. We also have to allow that governments are allowed to make deals with their ccTLD opertators that allow their registries to do things with which we don't agree -- such as sell domains to foreigners or in non-official languages. It's up to us to identify when that behavior constitutes fraud, misrepresentation or abuse -- of registrants or of the Internet-using public.
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. The backlash on this mailing list is similar.
No. I was at Sydney and the reaction is FAR less hostile here. You're simply losing credibility with those who are actually capable of making a comparison. This is not personal attack, it's an attempt to sort through the points to identify specific problem(s) and potential solution(s). Part of the problem is that we are confusing multiple very separate issues in this single thread: 1. Who has authority over a ccTLD -- the government, or a registry operator that may have laid original claim before the government was aware of its entitlement? 2. Should we be concerned if a government willingly delegates its ccTLD operations to foreigners? 3. What role -- if any -- is ICANN mandated to play in disputes between governments and ccTLD registries? 4. Why is ccTLD domain abuse not held under the same scrutiny as gTLD abuse, especially when the ccTLD is operated similarly to a gTLD? If a country wants to delegate complete or partial operation of its ccTLD to an American company that is its right, even according to you. Simply making a list of ccTLDs operating with the help of US-based companies or resources, without other context (ie, is it with the consent/contract of the government) is IMO sensationalism that does not help the debate.
My opinion is that there are people set to lose money, so they are doing what they can to silence discussion and sunshine. There are also people who are trying to keep the status quo for personal reasons.
Bob, this is the NARALO list, not the public forum. Before you start tossing around generalizations of ill intent here you ought to back it up. I'm just trying to make sense of things, and I appreciate neither your accusations nor what I saw as fear-mongering in Garth's shopping list. And, believe me, I'm not making money off of any of this. If there's an identifiable problem (from the public POV) let's identify it. If ICANN can do something about the problem, let's put that forward. If this is something that ICANN should be watching (and it's in ICANN's mandate) but being ignored, let's tackle that. But if the problem is something that ICANN was never designed to address, let's identify that and determine what (other) channels need to be used. Maybe the best thing we can do is produce a chart for each ccTKD outlining the information we have, what are their policies, how much do they operate like a gTLD, where is their registry located and what is the registry's relationship with the government? Starting from a point of accurate information helps everyone.
This is a serious problem that should not be ignored, as it has been for years.
Clarity, please. Let's know the problem before we can hope to address it. - Evan
Here you are Evan. --bob ========================================================================== Evan said: "This is, of course at odds with the original post that started this thread, which defends the operators of the ccTLD operator for Honduras (an NGO) against its goverment's recent attempt to gain control of it." Bob says: Yes, it is at odds with the original post. I do not agree with defending the operators of the ccTLD against the Honduran government and no I am not happy with Honduras right now. This issue is about who controls the ccTLD, not whether I like the politics of the country. If all countries would do what I want, life on this planet would be much better :) But they don't, not even my own... ========================================================================= Evan said: Unless there were ground rules at the beginning that required registrants in ccTLDs be nationals of the country, the ccTLD operators were free to do as they wanted. Bob says: That is like saying that it's okay to steal my car because I wasn't in it at that moment. The lack of well thought rules at the beginning is one of the root causes of problems on the net. I am saying that problems should be fixed, not ignored. We have problems with security because it was not built in at the beginning. DNS is outdated as it stands and even Paul Vixie says it should junked (I was present when he said it). Free to do what you want because there is no rule or law against it, leaves out the ethical portion of whether one should behave in bad manner. There is often a difference between the spirit of the law and the words of the law. ======================================================================== Bob said: ...all the sites on .yy could be in the language of yy. Seems like a no-brainer. Evan said: It's not a no-brainer. Such decisions are up to the individual country. If a country wants a ccTLD in languages other than its own official languages,that's within its total discretion. Saying otherwise is imposing your values on them. Bob says: More careful reading of my writing will show the word "could." I meant that this would be one opportunity to address two issues. I was NOT implying that they had to do what I said. I DO think it's a good idea, however. =========================================================================== Bob said: The backlash on this mailing list is similar. Evan said: No. I was at Sydney and the reaction is FAR less hostile here. You're simply losing credibility with those who are actually capable of making a comparison. This is not personal attack, it's an attempt to sort through the points to identify specific problem(s) and potential solution(s). Bob says: Again reading more carefully -> "similar" does not mean the same. The response is certainly less hostile, but Kim's email was full of sarcasm and a distinct lack of knowledge in spite of her claim to be working with ccTCDs ar ICANN for years. You have now stated that I losing credibility. While not as loud, it still shows a beginning of an attack to undermine by credibility. btw, it continued for quite a while after Sydney. ============================================================================= Evan said: Part of the problem is that we are confusing multiple very separate issues in this single thread: 1. Who has authority over a ccTLD -- the government, or a registry operator that may have laid original claim before the government was aware of its entitlement? Bobs answer: The government. 2. Should we be concerned if a government willingly delegates its ccTLD operations to foreigners? Bob's answer: No. My point was that it is not simply an issue in the US. See the Namibia problem from last year - German citizen running their ccTLD. Namibia fought to get it back (I do not know the outcome). As long as the government says it's okay, then it's okay. 3. What role -- if any -- is ICANN mandated to play in disputes between governments and ccTLD registries? Bob's answer: No role. It belongs to the government. 4. Why is ccTLD domain abuse not held under the same scrutiny as gTLD abuse, especially when the ccTLD is operated similarly to a gTLD? Bob's answer: I think it should be held under the same scrutiny. How is another question. ===================================================================== Evan said: Bob, this is the NARALO list, not the public forum. Before you start tossing around generalizations of ill intent here you ought to back it up. I'm just trying to make sense of things, and I appreciate neither your accusations nor what I saw as fear-mongering in Garth's shopping list. And, believe me, I'm not making money off of any of this. Bob says: I don't know what this means. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on a topic raised by someone else? The "generalizations of ill intent?" Again, if I disagree I am suddenly a bad actor? I did not accuse you of anything, yet you feel that I did. Garth's "shopping list" "fear mongering" is an unnecessarily bad characterization of the work put into it. I never said you were making money from ccTLDs, but other are. I have had interactions with some of them - contact me off list for details. There is a problem with ccTLDs. We see it as a national sovereignty issue. We also see that IANA has not taken the responsibility to keep their public list up to date. This is a problem in my opinion. I would be very happy to see a context provided, which included a document from the governments stating they had outsourced the management of the ccTLD. What I don't get is the pushback. If it all legal and we are wrong, why hide it? ========================================================================== Evan said: Maybe the best thing we can do is produce a chart for each ccTKD outlining the information we have, what are their policies, how much do they operate like a gTLD, where is their registry located and what is the registry's relationship with the government? Starting from a point of accurate information helps everyone. Bob says: That would be wonderful. I will help. ============================================================================ On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:20:55 -0400 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: Bob Bruen <naralo@coldrain.net> Cc: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
Bob Bruen wrote:
I was around in the early days of the Internet creation and remember some of what was said and what happened. It sounds like (from the emails) that only a few others were also there, most have come to the table much later. As one example of early day change that happened, .com was supposed to be for commercial entities only and you had to have a machine connected (or ready to be connected) to the network to get a domain name. That changed pretty suddenly as people saw the potential money to be made. In the same light, ccTLDs were an attempt to provide countries with their own piece of the Internet, not as a commodity to be sold.
"Their own piece of the Internet" and "a commodity to be sold" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Unless there were ground rules at the beginning that required registrants in ccTLDs be nationals of the country, the ccTLD operators were free to do as they wanted. I would suggest that the governments of Niue and Tuvalu are not completely disappointed with the deals they made, and other countries have sought to copy the model.
The ccTLDs were handed out to those who understood what was coming, which was not always the governments. Individuals got control of many ccTLDs, many of which still keep control. The intent, which I believe is correct, is that each country would get their own .xx.. Like it or not, this is an issue of national sovereignty.
This is, of course at odds with the original post that started this thread, which defends the operators of the ccTLD operator for Honduras (an NGO) against its goverment's recent attempt to gain control of it.
I also believe that this feeds directly into the issue of local languages being available on the net. If *.yy were controlled by the local country of yy, all the sites on .yy could be in the language of yy. Seems like a no-brainer. This should be a priority issue for us, in spite of other issues of importance.
It's not a no-brainer. Such decisions are up to the individual country. If a country wants a ccTLD in languages other than its own official languages, that's within its total discretion. Saying otherwise is imposing your values on them.
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. If it belongs to the country, the country should get control of it. 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.
Maybe the ccTLD operator for .hn may be more democratic than the government of Honduras, but as you say that's not the point. If governments have ultimate authority about ccTLD deligation, than we can't pass judgment over whether any particular ruling regime is worthy of controlling its country's TLD. We also have to allow that governments are allowed to make deals with their ccTLD opertators that allow their registries to do things with which we don't agree -- such as sell domains to foreigners or in non-official languages. It's up to us to identify when that behavior constitutes fraud, misrepresentation or abuse -- of registrants or of the Internet-using public.
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. The backlash on this mailing list is similar.
No. I was at Sydney and the reaction is FAR less hostile here. You're simply losing credibility with those who are actually capable of making a comparison. This is not personal attack, it's an attempt to sort through the points to identify specific problem(s) and potential solution(s).
Part of the problem is that we are confusing multiple very separate issues in this single thread:
1. Who has authority over a ccTLD -- the government, or a registry operator that may have laid original claim before the government was aware of its entitlement? 2. Should we be concerned if a government willingly delegates its ccTLD operations to foreigners? 3. What role -- if any -- is ICANN mandated to play in disputes between governments and ccTLD registries? 4. Why is ccTLD domain abuse not held under the same scrutiny as gTLD abuse, especially when the ccTLD is operated similarly to a gTLD?
If a country wants to delegate complete or partial operation of its ccTLD to an American company that is its right, even according to you. Simply making a list of ccTLDs operating with the help of US-based companies or resources, without other context (ie, is it with the consent/contract of the government) is IMO sensationalism that does not help the debate.
My opinion is that there are people set to lose money, so they are doing what they can to silence discussion and sunshine. There are also people who are trying to keep the status quo for personal reasons.
Bob, this is the NARALO list, not the public forum. Before you start tossing around generalizations of ill intent here you ought to back it up. I'm just trying to make sense of things, and I appreciate neither your accusations nor what I saw as fear-mongering in Garth's shopping list. And, believe me, I'm not making money off of any of this.
If there's an identifiable problem (from the public POV) let's identify it. If ICANN can do something about the problem, let's put that forward. If this is something that ICANN should be watching (and it's in ICANN's mandate) but being ignored, let's tackle that. But if the problem is something that ICANN was never designed to address, let's identify that and determine what (other) channels need to be used.
Maybe the best thing we can do is produce a chart for each ccTKD outlining the information we have, what are their policies, how much do they operate like a gTLD, where is their registry located and what is the registry's relationship with the government? Starting from a point of accurate information helps everyone.
This is a serious problem that should not be ignored, as it has been for years.
Clarity, please. Let's know the problem before we can hope to address it.
- Evan
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Antony Van Couvering -
Bob Bruen -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at KnujOn -
John R. Levine -
Kim Davies