<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13.12.13 19:25, Kerry Brown wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>I think the people in this discussion are failing to
distinguish who “owns” the ccTLD and the process by which the
DNS zone for the ccTLD is inserted into the root.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, to cite from RFC1591:<br>
<br>
3. The Administration of Delegated Domains<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated<br>
domain, and have a duty to serve the community.<br>
<br>
The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain
for<br>
both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global<br>
Internet community.<br>
<br>
Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are<br>
inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about<br>
"responsibilities" and "service" to the community.<br>
<br>
This pretty much sums it all up, in rather condensed language.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<div> I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the
government of the country involved “owns" the ccTLD.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A government, in any "civilized" country owns nothing.<br>
<br>
The government is a group of individuals elected to do certain work
for the public benefit. When you employ someone, they don't obtain
ownership rights to (your) property they are hired to look after.<br>
<br>
We can of course say, that a ccTLD is assigned to a
country/territory (as long as it has the appropriate association in
the ISO-3166 list). That pretty much defines the "ownership" of the
ccTLD by the country (but not government).<br>
<br>
Ownership of the ccTLD database, DNS zone file, etc by the ccTLD
manager is an completely unrelated issue. In most countries, this is
defined as property and transfer of such property from one party to
another is considered a property sale. Making that property public,
so that it can be managed (not owned) by the government is known as
"nationalization".<br>
Property transfer is not something IANA has ever claimed to deal
with and so RFC1591 leaves that to be resolved as "local matter".<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<div> I can’t imagine IANA not changing the delegation after
receiving a legitimate request from a UN recognized government.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can't imagine a reasonable government making such a request in the
first place.<br>
<br>
I have discussed this with our own government officials of the day,
who at various times (we operate the registry 22 years already, a
lot of governments with different agendas came and went away)
desired to re-delegate the ccTLD (without being able to explain
why). Their primary problem was finding a way to ask an private
foreign entity to do them a favor, and do this publicly. There is no
law in my country, and I believe in most countries that permits such
activity. The government also cannot pay such an foreign private
entity any "membership fees" etc. Yet, our government has tried this
several times. Going back to the times where Jon Postel was still
around and ICANN was not even a dream. These attempts have always
been politely refused.<br>
<br>
So facts point that IANA has not changed the delegation after
receiving a legitimate request from a UN recognized government.<br>
What is more important, in recent years the GAC came to the
understanding this is not even necessary or desirable. Perhaps
because, it was demonstrated few times already how a new government
can wreak havoc in an country's economics, yet not influence it's
DNS/Internet infrastructure.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<div>The repercussions would be profound. Another point that
hasn’t been brought up is that many ccTLDs do not have any
contract with IANA/ICANN and pay no fees to have their zone in
the root.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There have never been written contracts. On the other hand, most
ccTLD managers take their responsibilities very seriously. I would
trust any "old-time" ccTLD manager without contract more, than I
would trust any newcomer, be it Government "approved" (contributed
to their campaign?) with a contract. But that is me. Anyone else is
free to trust contracts more.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
The above not withstanding I have always considered that IANA is
under control of the US government and would accede to any
instructions from the US government regarding delegation.</blockquote>
<br>
Any change in the DNS root is subject to authorization by the USG.
Therefore, the process is a bit different. IANA is pretty much
independent in processing the request. It then may, or may not be
implemented. I have no knowledge of the USG refusing to approve an
IANA root zone change request, but I may be wrong.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<div> I don’t like this but I believe it is the reality. So far to
my knowledge the US government has never intervened but in a
time of war I could certainly imagine that it might happen. I
can also imagine a powerful lobby group (copyright) convincing
the US government to alter a ccTLD zone. Both of these cases
would probably be the end of one root. I would very much like to
see the root moved out of US control but I am at a loss as to
how this could be accomplished without eventually fracturing the
root into several forks.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe the current informal trust relationship suits the US
government and they feel no need to intervene. They use the current
model to dampen the push of any special interest groups (who often
include governments). If ever contracts are enforced on ccTLDs, or
more formal procedures are established, the USG will be forced to
act and I can see how easy the situation might become ugly. It could
be even worse if the final say on root zone changes move out of the
US, a situation commonly referred to as "shared irresponsibility".<br>
<br>
If you will remember 1998, an experiment was made back then to move
the IANA out of the US (control)... which only resulted in the
creation of ICANN.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CED07FFC.21717%25kerry@kdbsystems.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kerry Brown</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Joanna Kulesza
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joannakulesza@gmail.com">joannakulesza@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, December
13, 2013 at 2:58 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
Kerry Brown <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kerry@kdbsystems.com">kerry@kdbsystems.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet
root, not US<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"
style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0
0 0 5;">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Thanks for this example Kerry. <br>
<br>
I think it all boils down to the language of the RFC
1591 where in pt. 4 it states that "4) Significantly
interested parties in the domain should agree that
the designated manager is the appropriate party."
Who decides on the scope and legitimacy of the
"significantly interested parties in the domain"?
IANA? Is it also IANA who asseses that there is
"agreement"? Or is it "the community"? Meaning who?
<br>
<br>
</div>
I believe there is no doubt that states hold no
particular role in assigning the ccTLD manager, even
though ccTLDs are perceived by some as manifestations
of nationality. States are to be considered one of the
"significantly interested parties" and seek consensus.
With IANA/ICANN being the judge of the consensus in
place. Just for the record - I am not saying it's a
bad thing, just seeking confirmation on the facts as I
see them. Will appreciate any comments or corrections.
<br>
<br>
</div>
Thanks,<br>
Joanna <br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/12/13 Kerry Brown <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kerry@kdbsystems.com" target="_blank">kerry@kdbsystems.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="font-size:14px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">
<div>As a current director of CIRA who are
delegated to run .ca as designated by the
Canadian government I too find the discussion
fascinating. I was not on CIRA’s board when the
relegation from UBC to CIRA took place. John
Demco who had the original delegation at UBC is
on our board and I’ve had many discussions with
him about the process. Here is a link that
outlines the process IRA went through.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html"
target="_blank">http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My understanding of the process for
delegation into the IANA/ICANN root is that the
government of the country can request the
delegation be changed to another party. It is
then up to IANA to determine the validity of the
request and providing it is valid the ccTLD will
be delegated to the entity specified by the
government.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kerry Brown</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="border-right:medium
none;padding-right:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-top:3pt;text-align:left;font-size:11pt;border-bottom:medium
none;font-family:Calibri;border-top:#b5c4df
1pt
solid;padding-bottom:0in;border-left:medium
none">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Joanna
Kulesza <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joannakulesza@gmail.com"
target="_blank">joannakulesza@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
Joanna Kulesza <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joannakulesza@gmail.com"
target="_blank">joannakulesza@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Thursday,
December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[governance] UN controls the country code part
of the Internet root, not US<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5
solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
</div>
as much as this is my very first
post on the list, the discussion
is so riveting, I had to chip in,
with a question rather than an
opinion really.
<br>
<br>
Would the ICANN "power" you were
discussing not also be visible in
the delegation/redelegation
policy? Not "taking the country
offline" but redelegating the
management of the ccTLD to an
entitiy more... willing to
colaborate with ICANN/US? The case
that always come to my mind when
we speak about ICANN "power" over
the online reflections of state
sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs,
is the 2004 Haiti case:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/"
target="_blank">
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/</a>
or
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just"
target="_blank">
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just</a> for
the sake of objectivity, here's
the IANA take on the case:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html"
target="_blank">
http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
My question to the members of the
list, should they choose to answer it,
is simple - was this a stricly
technical decision or would you
consider it a politically influenced
one? Does the Haiti case stand out?
Are there any other examples of
redelegation decision viewed as
controversial, like this one? Is this
a state sovereignty issue? Or not at
all?
<br>
<br>
</div>
Thank you, <br>
Joanna Kulesza <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/12/12
George Sadowsky <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com"
target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
All,<br>
<br>
Adam makes good points.<br>
<br>
I want to add something important
that arises from the case of
Palestine.<br>
<br>
As you know, the ISO 3166 list,
maintained by the German National
Statistical Organization, takes its
input from the Un Statistical Office
(UNSO), which has the authority to
decide when an entry should be
included. I worked in the UNSO from
1973-1986, and at one point was
designing a data base for county
statistics where the underlying
country structure was dynamic and
changed over time as countries
merged and/or divided. The issue
was how to improve statistical
analysis when the underlying units
of observation changed composition.<br>
<br>
The specific case of Israeli
statistics came up, and I queried
why Palestine was not considered to
be a statistical entity so that the
statistical profile of each entity
could be more meaningful for
analytical purposes. I was told
that the decision of what was or was
not a state of territory was
political and not technical, and was
communicated from the political
authorities at the UN. That is why
Palestine was blocked and had to
wait until 2000 to be added to the
root as a legitimate territory.<br>
<br>
So there you have it. The UN has
the ultimate power of deciding what
'country codes' go into the root,
not the US, and the UN uses it.<br>
<br>
George<br>
<br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
<br>
<br>
On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam
Peake wrote:<br>
<br>
> Comment below:<br>
><br>
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM,
Jovan Kurbalija wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Here are a few comments in
line with JK<br>
>><br>
>> So what you are saying is
that the UN could tell the US to
stop<br>
>> serving the records for a
ccTLD and the US could then tell
VRSN (by<br>
>> court order?) to delete
that ccTLD?<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> This potential of the U.S.
deleting a ccTLD has been worried
over since the earliest days of
WSIS. But there have been wars and
ccTLDs haven't been touched
(.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/"
target="_blank">http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/</a>>.
Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000
and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't
edited them out of the root zone, so
it seems we shouldn't worry too
much. However, whatever we think
the U.S. might do or not do, this
issue is unlikely to go away. It
might be helpful to codify what
looks like de facto policy,
something like: 'The U.S. government
will not unilaterally remove any TLD
from the root.' (Write that up in
nice language).<br>
><br>
> This could be one of the topics
for the meeting in Brazil next
April, discussions that might
kick-off a process to develop and
agree a policy statement on root
operations. Not going to agree
anything much in two days, but might
be able to agree on a charter of a
working group to come up
proposals/recommendations. A working
group that reports progress and
outcomes within the IGF process:
first in Istanbul a few months
later, then back to Brazil for the
IGF in 2015 where any agreement
might be reviewed by a broader
community. Might make it part of a
larger effort looking at the
Internationalization of the IANA, if
that's a topic for Brazil next year
-- and I think it should be one of
the topics. More on this in another
email.<br>
><br>
> Adam<br>
><br>
><br>
>> JK: Sanctions cannot be
adopted without the US support. Any
action under UN Chapter VII,
including sanctions, must be agreed
by the all 5 permanent members of
the Security Council (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml"
target="_blank">http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml</a>).<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> If that is the case, and
VRSN complied (which I think they
would fight<br>
>> BTW) then it would be a UN
"power" and the US would just be an
agent<br>
>> of the UN?<br>
>><br>
>> JK: If the USA, like any
other state, adopts certain UN
convention or policy, it has
obligation to implement it. If the
USA supports decision on sanctions
against certain country, it should
implement the sanction regime.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a
subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list,
visit:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information
and functions, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to
find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a
subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and
functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the
IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Joanna Kulesza </font></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Joanna Kulesza </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>