<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
McTim,<br>
<br>
Perhaps you can assist me with a question relating to root
governance.<br>
<br>
When you say:<br>
<blockquote>These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia.
Changing the IP address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example.
When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly
now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing,
Durban). <br>
</blockquote>
Thinking about our city's application for the .nyc TLD, I've been
looking at the NTIA-IANA contract, particularly C.2.9.2.d, which
says: (<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">from</span><a
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf"
style="text-decoration:none;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
</span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#1155cc;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf</span></a>)<br>
<a
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf"
style="text-decoration:none;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#1155cc;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;"></span></a>
<blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.15;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">C.2.9.2d
Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain
(gTLD) -- The Contractor shall verify that all requests
related to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are
consistent with the procedures developed by ICANN. In making a
delegation or redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must
provide documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own
policy framework including <u>specific documentation
demonstrating how the process provided the opportunity for
input from relevant stakeholders</u> and was supportive of
the global public interest. The Contractor shall submit its
recommendations to the COR via a Delegation</span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
and Redelegation Report.</span><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
With New York only now considering ways to provide "<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">the
opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders" I've been
seeking guidance from the nature of that review by IANA. Last week
I wrote to the COR (an NTIA official) and IANA asking how those
supportive of the .nyc TLD </span>might assure that the city's
application and outreach efforts meet the input requirements (see
attachment).<br>
<br>
As I understand it, IANA is now a "independent" entity within ICANN.
But I've been unable to find any detail about the nature of its
C.2.9.2.d review on its website. Any pointers on this would be
greatly appreciated. <br>
<br>
And isn't it IANA rather than GAC that decides what goes into the
root?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/1/2013 8:45 AM, McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxg=-7A_SQUn+mCfGArVNRSAXo8HyLhk7mEkM43hcq2zvw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Parminder,<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im"> <br>
<div>On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre
Williams wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Some concepts are too complex to
force them into a single word.
<div>Deirdre</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Deirdre/ All<br>
<br>
Most things in social and political discourse are
complex. However, there is always a way to build
categories, split issues, and progress in steps ,
whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them
and make social and political progress... Such a shared
intention is key...<br>
<br>
I think there are two clear issues about
'internationalisation of ICANN'<br>
<br>
1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is
subject.<br>
<br>
2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every
change in the root file.<br>
<br>
It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone
agrees that US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root
change authorising' role</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Actually not true. We have heard on this list that
there are governments who are comfortable with this role,
but they will only speak of this in private, but that is
not who you need to convince. I think there are a lot of
biz folk who are happy with the status quo of #2. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then
be exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or
(b) another body to undertake this role (and just this
role and nothing else) is needed. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Actually the question that must precede the above is:
"Does this auth role need to be filled". In other words,
can we trust IANA to do their job according to their own
processes (which is what NTIA looks at).</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
A lot of people - including i* group - are of the
opinion that (a) above is the best option. Some others
think that every significant decision pertaining to a
crucial global infrastructure should be subject to a
second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by
a body different from the executive authority (ICANN
Board).</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia.
Changing the IP address of a ccTLDs nameserver for
example. When it comes to deciding what can go in the
root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC
Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> One way would be to
have some kind of international oversight board (not
necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as
undertaken by US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow
ICANN to make root changes but all such decisions are
post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an
international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre
facto or post facto role, such an oversight board will
exercise its role within clearly set our parameters and
rules.) A third way is to only have an appellate board
which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal is
made to it through a due process. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI, the ICANN Board ALREADY decides on new gTLDs and
redelegations, so adding less important like changes to
glue records should be non-controversial.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask
US-NTIA to shed its oversight role.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We can certainly ask. but they take this
responsibility very seriously, so they may not accede to
the request.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> What should further
be done can be discussed along the above three lines
(others may add more options if any)<br>
<br>
Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in
principles, it is easy to assert that a global resource
cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of one country and
that it should be subject to international jurisdiction.
The issue then is; how to form such an international
jurisdiction. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we can do point #2, then it may be easier to do
point #1. I don't think we should try to do both. Let's
work on continued evolution, not revolution.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to
assert the principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN
continues to be subject to US law and jurisdiction.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>and Singapore law and Turkish law and the laws of other
nations where there are offices.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Karl's point re: contracts is a valid one. How would
you address that?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
ICANN needs to be made subject to international law and
jurisdiction.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is it not already? Aren't we all?</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it
is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>