[governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US
Daniel Kalchev
daniel at digsys.bg
Fri Dec 13 06:27:13 EST 2013
As already mentioned, because of questionable practices by IANA in
ICANN's "grey period" the policy defined in RFC1591 and further
"clarified" by the GAC Principles is being curently interpreted by a
broadly constituted working group under the authority of the ccNSO. The
group is far from finished with this task, but a lot of findings could
be found at:
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm
The topic who the community is and how significant the Government's role
in that community is a difficult one to solve --- considering
especially, that most governments do not even recognize their is
community besides their own party/leader/other interests. As with
everything else in Internet, this too requires cooperation and broader
inclusion -- especially as it turns out Governments have absolutely no
control over the network, other than what the community has let them have.
In essence, your observations are correct.
Daniel
On 13.12.13 12:58, Joanna Kulesza wrote:
> Thanks for this example Kerry.
>
> I think it all boils down to the language of the RFC 1591 where in pt.
> 4 it states that "4) Significantly interested parties in the domain
> should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party."
> Who decides on the scope and legitimacy of the "significantly
> interested parties in the domain"? IANA? Is it also IANA who asseses
> that there is "agreement"? Or is it "the community"? Meaning who?
>
> I believe there is no doubt that states hold no particular role in
> assigning the ccTLD manager, even though ccTLDs are perceived by some
> as manifestations of nationality. States are to be considered one of
> the "significantly interested parties" and seek consensus. With
> IANA/ICANN being the judge of the consensus in place. Just for the
> record - I am not saying it's a bad thing, just seeking confirmation
> on the facts as I see them. Will appreciate any comments or corrections.
>
> Thanks,
> Joanna
>
>
>
> 2013/12/13 Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com
> <mailto:kerry at kdbsystems.com>>
>
> As a current director of CIRA who are delegated to run .ca as
> designated by the Canadian government I too find the discussion
> fascinating. I was not on CIRA’s board when the relegation from
> UBC to CIRA took place. John Demco who had the original delegation
> at UBC is on our board and I’ve had many discussions with him
> about the process. Here is a link that outlines the process IRA
> went through.
>
> http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html
>
> My understanding of the process for delegation into the IANA/ICANN
> root is that the government of the country can request the
> delegation be changed to another party. It is then up to IANA to
> determine the validity of the request and providing it is valid
> the ccTLD will be delegated to the entity specified by the government.
>
> Kerry Brown
>
> From: Joanna Kulesza <joannakulesza at gmail.com
> <mailto:joannakulesza at gmail.com>>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Joanna Kulesza
> <joannakulesza at gmail.com <mailto:joannakulesza at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the
> Internet root, not US
>
> 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
> <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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joanna Kulesza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131213/ebf736ea/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