[governance] who owns the new gTLDs?

[Keith Davidson]

There are now 135 ccTLDs who are members of the ccNSO in ICANN. This 
represents well over half of the approx 244 ASCII ccTLDs, but probably 
these members account for 95%+ of individual ccTLD domain names 
registered. The ccNSO has very strict limitations on any policies that 
can be applied in the global sense, and encourages ccTLDs to act in 
accordance with the policies outlined in RFC1591, namely that the ccTLD 
will act in the best interests of the local Internet community. The 
ccTLD managers agree there are few "one size fits all" solutions, and 
while the ccNSO provides a forum to discuss and aspire to best practice. 
The idea that ccTLDs should become homogenous is not asserted as an 
option. Appreciation of the differences, understanding the processes of 
developing local solutions collaboratively with the local Internet 
community, so the ccTLD reflects the communities view is of considerable 
importance. The concept of subsidiarity, and jurisdictional law being 
paramount are quite clearly articulated in RFC1591 and generally 
subscribed to by ccTLD managers - remembering there are a fair number of 
ccTLDs for territories where there is no Government.

After a very rough start in ICANN's early days, there was little trust 
from the ccTLDs in the ICANN model and structure, but it is a very 
different situation today. This year the ccNSO will celebrate its 10th 
birthday - after a struggle to get 4 ccTLDs from each of the 5 ICANN 
regions to join, to create the ccNSO. So to have come from 20 founding 
members to 130 members in 10 years does indicate greater trust in the 
ICANN model. And as David points out, there are many of the ccNSO 
members voluntarily paying fees to ICANN, and having various 
contractural arrangements with ICANN.

The ccNSO is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" of the policies 
applicable to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, seeking to add 
"colour and depth" to the policies included in RFC1591 and the 
guidelines provided by the GAC in ICANN on ccTLD delegation and 
redelegation principles. The issues and policies around delegation, 
redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs are probably one of the very few 
areas where the ccNSO will likely have agreed globally applicable 
policies. The other main area has been the development of technical 
policies for IDN ccTLDs.

Cheers

Keith

On 6/03/2013 7:50 p.m., David Conrad wrote:
> Imran,
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com
> <mailto: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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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