[governance] European Commission 'welcomes improvements in new IANA contract'

[Daniel Kalchev]

On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <C6CBE7E2-E0DD-4A59-8A78-9C0AC1B682CF at digsys.bg>, at 14:11:07
> on Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes
> 
>>> Even cctld redelegations are decided upon by the ICANN board.
>> 
>> Everyone would have benefited if IANA behavior remained as originally
>> designed and implemented, before ICANN was introduced in the game.
> 
> RFC1591 has Internic as the decision-making body, with "regional
> registries [such as RIPE NCC and APNIC] enlisted to assist in the
> administration of the DNS". So you'd propose that AfriNIC was involved
> when considering if South Sudan should get a new cctld?

I am not aware of the pre-ICANN IANA to have consulted regional IP address registries on domain name matters.

But yes, RFC1591 has Internic as the important party :)
And Internic has always been a role, with a different contractor running the task at different times.

> 
>> The IANA guidelines, spelled in RFC1591 clearly state that IANA does
>> not participate in "re-delegation".  In fact, it does not even lave
>> such word (re-delegation) in there! That terminology was later designed
>> by the "commissioner" types..
> 
> You seem to be implying that they forgot to allow for the possibility
> that the "designated manager" might change?

No, they did not.

> 
> But the rfc says:
> 
>      For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one
>      organization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA
>      in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from
>      both the old organization and the new organization that assure the
>      IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new
>      organization understands its responsibilities.
> 
> Giving that process the name "re-delegation" doesn't seem to me to be
> controversial.

It is different to have "re-delegation" as a process and "re-delegation" as a concept.

There is no "re-delegation" process in RFC1591. There is rather two step process of revoking the registry and then delegating it to a new party. 
Or a process, like the case quoted by you, that is rather "transfer" or "update" but in no way "re-delegation" as later invented by ICANN.

The difference might be subtle, but is very important.

Still, there is no "re-delegation" terminology at all in RFC1591.

The reason this is important is, because IANA has a rather simple role: to register who the TLD manager is.

Daniel____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t