[governance] who owns the new gTLDs?

[David Conrad]

Imran,

On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts.
>  
> We have tried both options, submitted concern in ICANN's Seoul Meeting and submitting our request online and through email but we were told from ICANN that some of the ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN.

The vast majority of ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN.  A fair number of ccTLD administrators have entered into "Accountability Frameworks" or exchanges of letters, see http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds for details.

> It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this.

Yes. ccTLD matters have historically treated as matters of national sovereignty.  In the very earliest days of ICANN, an attempt was made by ICANN to force ccTLDs into contractual relations by refusing to do updates unless contracts were signed.  One of the results of this was a contract modification with language inserted into the IANA Functions contract with the USG that explicitly disallowed ICANN from doing this (section c.8.3 in the current IANA functions contract). A decade later when I ran IANA, I continued to run into unhappiness at ICANN's actions during that period. 

> With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not.
Most do not.

> ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s Policies.
True, unless the ccTLDs agree to be bound to follow those policies.

> In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. 

Which countries/ccTLDs are these? One of the requirements of RFC 1591 is:

"In the case of top-level domains that are country codes this means that there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain name system in that country."

I'm told this wording was put into RFC 1591 specifically to ensure the domain name manager is subject to the laws of the country the ccTLD represents. Lack of in-country manager can be (has been) a factor in a redelegation.

> ICANN policies does not support public interest over here.

I'm unsure how ICANN (or any non-sovereign) can impose their policies on national sovereigns. 

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/38af17e3/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