RE: [cctld-discuss] Re: [council] IANA Report on the .pn Top-Level Domain

["Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlin@pobox.com>]

Dennis:

ICANN's staff executes policy as it exists.  Policy development and changes
in existing policy require consultation and the development of a bottom-up
consensus.  But it's not part of the ICANN design (indeed, it would be
impossible) to demand a bottom-up consensus on every single decision taken
under ICANN policies.

The line between what is policy development and policy execution is, of
course, not always an easy one to define.  But where (as in this case)
existing policy is clear (ICP-1) <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm>, and
the situation falls squarely within existing policy, the ICANN/IANA staff
acts as required by the policy.

Future policies might, of course, require certain kinds of consultation
before the staff acts.  But in the case of .pn, ICANN/IANA staff simply
acted as required by existing policy.

--Andrew


[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: Dennis Jennings [mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie]
[ Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 1:24 AM
[ To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
[ Cc: cctld-discuss@lists.wwtld.org; council@dnso.org;
[ mclaughlin@pobox.com; touton@icann.org
[ Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: [council] IANA Report on the .pn
[ Top-Level Domain
[ 
[ 
[ Elisabeth,
[ 
[ I would hope that this is not the case.  ICANN has been established as a
[ consultative botton-up organisation and should consult before 
[ acting.  In this
[ case it probably will not matter as there is probably consensus that the
[ decision is a correct one - but in future cases this may not be 
[ the situation. 
[ I would not like ICANN to damage its credibility with a key component (the
[ ccTLDs) of the organisation (and a proposed key funder).
[ 
[ Dennis
[ -------
[ Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
[ > 
[ > Dennis wrote:
[ > >
[ > > ccTLD Colleagues,
[ > >
[ > > Please see below a message from Loius Touton of ICANN on the 
[ proposed change of
[ > > delegation of the .pn Pitcairn Island ccTLD.  Please let me 
[ have any comments
[ > > you may have so that I may advise the Names Council of the 
[ ccTLD Constituency
[ > > views.
[ > >
[ > > On the basis of the information presented in the report, the 
[ proposal to
[ > > re-delegate seems reasonable to me.
[ > >
[ > > However, it would seem appropriate that the new ccTLD Manager 
[ be required to
[ > > sign up to ccTLD Best Practice as part of the re-delegation 
[ process (see the
[ > > separate message on the CENTR Best Practice Guidelines for 
[ ccTLD Managers).
[ > >
[ > > Dennis
[ > 
[ > ==> According to the root and NSI database, the change has already
[ >     taken place -- the .PN has been updated on 11-Feb-2000.
[ > 
[ >     whois -h whois.networksolutions.com "handle PN5-DOM"
[ > 
[ >     The DNSO GA was discussing about, see for exemple:
[ >         http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01454.html
[ >         http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01471.html
[ > 
[ >     Elisabeth
[ > 
[ > >
[ > > -------- Original Message --------
[ > > Subject: [council] IANA Report on the .pn Top-Level Domain
[ > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:29:06 -0800
[ > > From: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>
[ > > To: council@dnso.org
[ > >
[ > > To the Names Council:
[ > >
[ > > Today the IANA is issuing a report on the 1997 request of the
[ > > Pitcairn Island Council that the delegation of the .pn domain
[ > > be changed.  A copy of the report appears at
[ > > <http://www.icann.org/general/pn-report-11feb00.htm>.  The report
[ > > concludes, based on existing ccTLD policy as set forth in
[ > > ICP-1 <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm>, that the delegation
[ > > should be changed.  ccTLD delegation and administration policies
[ > > are on the agenda for the March 9 public forum in Cairo.
[ > >
[ > > Louis Touton
[ > >
[ > 
[ > --
[ > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
[ > Discussion Mailing List
[ > (Formerly wwtld@ripe.net)