[governance] GAC ccTLD Principles

CW Mail mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
Fri Dec 13 01:33:14 EST 2013 

http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm

Good morning:

I suggest that those participating in this discussion read the GAC ccTLD Principles.

Regards

CW



On 13 Dec 2013, at 00:25, Joanna Kulesza <joannakulesza at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/  or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html 
> 
> 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? 
> 
> Thank you, 
> Joanna Kulesza 
> 
> 
> 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> All,
> 
> Adam makes good points.
> 
> I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> George
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> 
> > Comment below:
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote:
> >
> >> Here are a few comments in line with JK
> >>
> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop
> >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by
> >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD?
> >>
> >
> >
> > 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 <http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/>.  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).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >> 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 (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml).
> >>
> >>
> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight
> >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent
> >> of the UN?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joanna Kulesza
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131213/e126068f/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

More information about the Governance mailing list