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

[Roland Perry]

In message <C2DC483E-E1F4-41F0-AB6C-13356CDDCC4C at digsys.bg>, at 16:06:23 
on Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes

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

The rfc suggests it's the central IR (Internic) that would be doing the 
consulting.

>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.

OK, we'll call it something else.

>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.

And who decides who the manager is (or indeed that there can be a 
manager at all)? On one hand RFC1591 implies that once ISO has issued a 
code, then it follows automatically and inevitably that there will be a 
manager, and RFC1591 suggests that if mysterious "parties" agree[1] then 
IANA will rubber stamp it, but we see ICANN involved at the moment.

[1] Or not. Is the ICANN Board the successor to the IDNB?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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