[governance] GAC ccTLD Principles
Joanna Kulesza
joannakulesza at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 05:40:12 EST 2013
Just for the sake of argument: please try and locate the .eu, .ac and
.uk ccTLDs on the ISO list. A similar argument might be made for .tp .yu
and .su yet I realize that those domains are no longer accepting new
registrations. The point is that there is some space left for IANA/ICANN
in making their decisions despite the seemingly clear RFCs.
Thanks,
Joanna
W dniu 2013-12-13 10:53, Daniel Kalchev pisze:
> 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/a35f299a/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