[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[McTim]

Hi Thomas,


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt
<toml at communisphere.com>wrote:

>  McTim,
>
> Perhaps you can assist me with a question relating to root governance.
>
>  When you say:
>
> 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).
>
> 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: (from
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf
> )
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>
>
> 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 *specific documentation demonstrating how the
> process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders*and was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall
> submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation
> Report.
>
> With New York only now considering ways to provide "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 might
> assure that the city's application and outreach efforts meet the input
> requirements (see attachment).
>


Is this onus on you or on the "Contractor"?  My reading suggests it is on
the Contractor (which is of course ICANN).


>
> 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.
>


IANA is a function (or series of functions) that ICANN is currently
responsible for doing.  They have always been a separate "entity" in a
variety of ways.

I have no pointers except Google, sorry.  This may be of interest tho:
http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/



>
> And isn't it IANA rather than GAC that decides what goes into the root?
>


Yes.  and No.  IANA makes decisions according to its documented procedures
about a change to the root.  However, in the current paradigm of new gTLDs,
it is the GAC which gives advice to the BoD (and the BoD seems unwilling to
disregard much of this advice).  So if you are the .gcc applicant, from
your perspective, it is the GAC who made the decision that you are
unworthy.  IANA had nothing to do with it!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/48a7515d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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