[governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US

Kerry Brown kerry at kdbsystems.com
Fri Dec 13 12:25:41 EST 2013 

I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who “owns” the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is inserted into the root. I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the government of the country involved “owns" the ccTLD. I can’t imagine IANA not changing the delegation after receiving a legitimate request from a UN recognized government. The repercussions would be profound. Another point that hasn’t been brought up is that many ccTLDs do not have any contract with IANA/ICANN and pay no fees to have their zone in the root.

The above not withstanding I have always considered that IANA is under control of the US government and would accede to any instructions from the US government regarding delegation. I don’t like this but I believe it is the reality. So far to my knowledge the US government has never intervened but in a time of war I could certainly imagine that it might happen. I can also imagine a powerful lobby group (copyright) convincing the US government to alter a ccTLD zone. Both of these cases would probably be the end of one root. I would very much like to see the root moved out of US control but I am at a loss as to how this could be accomplished without eventually fracturing the root into several forks.

Kerry Brown

From: Joanna Kulesza <joannakulesza at gmail.com<mailto:joannakulesza at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, December 13, 2013 at 2:58 AM
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com<mailto:kerry at kdbsystems.com>>
Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US

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



____________________________________________________________
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




--
Joanna Kulesza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131213/27559cad/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