[governance] GAC ccTLD Principles

Fri Dec 13 04:53:54 EST 2013

Also, it is good idea to take note of 4. 2) in RFC1591, which says:

       The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is
       not a country.

       The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code
       top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a
       procedure for determining which entities should be and should not
       be on that list.

This is relevant, because the ICANN so many here to refer as an 
authority in this regard, at in fact a contractor to perform the IANA 
function. The real authority is IANA, and in it's original definition of 
it's TLD management policies it has said precisely the above. That 
document has never been revised, it is only interpreted from time to 
time (GAC Principles, the current FOI working group at ccNSO).

The US Government has in fact delegated all of the "power" over DNS to 
IANA. Not impossible to influence it's decisions, but IANA performance 
has always been subject to much scrutiny by the community.

Daniel

On 13.12.13 08:33, CW Mail wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/eba04269/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