[ga] The International Association of Top Level Domains ("IATLD")

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

The International Association of Top Level Domains
http://www.iatld.org/

I have now been given permission by Mr Gennady Pritsker to publish a copy of our
correspondence which you will find of interest.  Mr Pritsker has asked that I
edit this mail a little for public presentation and I have been happy to oblige.

However, I have left references to persons acting in an "official" capacitiy.

Hi Gennady

I have now had the opportunity to browse your http://www.iatld.org/ website and
some of the links.  Whilst it looks as it there are still some areas of further
website development needed I found some of the information (such as the links to
mailing lists and the list of members) quite useful.

I thought you had been newly founded but I understand you have, in fact, been in
operation for a couple of years.  Could you let me know what's your current
progress and what exactly you are trying to achieve?  That'll give me more of a
chance to understand your strategy.

Patrick,

Since the ICANN conference in Cairo, we have mobilized our resources in an
effort to draw attention to the need for effective representation of ccTLDs'
interests in ICANN processes. We have been playing an active role in the
drafting of the Best Practice and Redelegation Guidelines for ccTLD Managers via
the participation of Antony Van Couvering, President of the IATLD, and Chair of
the Best Practice and Redelegation working group of the ccTLD constituency of
the DNSO.

The IATLD is currently proposing membership to registries, focusing its
attention especially on ccTLDs in countries and territories of the Pacific Rim,
in Latin America and Eastern Europe. The ccTLD administrators of the majority of
these countries support our vision of an Internet regulated by ccTLD
administrators with input from the Local Internet Community, which includes the
local government.

We are also accelerating our efforts among existing members. Redelegation
(including calls for it, hearings on non-performance of Manager's duties,
tc)  - as a fundamental issue for the ccTLD constituency and a pivotal one for
contract making - served as the basis for our founding, and we feel that
especially considering the problems .CX has recently encountered with its
redelegation, as well as the latest developments in .PH, it is an area that
requires serious attention. We also plan to update www.iatld.org shortly;
www.cctld-drafting.org contains ccTLD-related documents and a free chat
interface that facilitates communication between Managers.

In Melbourne, the IATLD invited John Klensin, a collaborator with Jon Postel on
RFC 1591, and the author of RFC 3071, to speak before the ccTLD constituency. We
think RFC 3071 provides very realistic solutions to the sources of angst and
discord within the ccTLD community, and hope that his presentation has led some
people to think about it in earnest.

Personally, I believe this RFC is good news.  I first read it back in April,
when I was still new on ccTLD-related issues, and thought it made some sense.
Now  I believe it makes quite a bit of sense

Most of the changes in the current structure of ICANN suggested by the RFC are
certainly desirable, and I believe the ccTLD constituency will go along with
them, especially considering that some were ready for secession at the LA
Meeting (the idea of the ccSO).  I have heard more than once the clearly
formulated desire to have a separate category within the constituency for
commercial ccTLDs.  If this RFC is taken seriously and acted upon (which is
likely, at least in part) the world of Top Level Domains will emerge more
organized and more harmonious.

Until that happens (and I believe that such sweeping changes are some time on
the offing,) much jockeying between interest groups will occur, and much
lobbying will have to be done. RFC 3071 is an essential exercise in theory, long
in coming.  Now comes the time for action, for implementing the theory into
practice.  Parties interested in the implementation of the RFC's suggestions,
namely the separation of the current ccTLD constituency into purpose-oriented
categories, will need to voice their views within the framework of the DNSO.

The IATLD has a seat on the Administrative Committee of the ccTLD constituency.
In the past, we have used this position to represent the interests of our
members, and have also been pro-active in pursuing concrete results in the
elusive search for consensus.  We provided fora for discussion of matters of
interest to ccTLD Managers (cctld-drafting.org - bestpractice mailing list, free
chat), gathered their opinions and suggestions.

We met with the GAC at the Yokohama and Melbourne meeting to show both it and
ICANN that the constituency's interests will not be ignored.  We have also
drafted documents (Best Practice Guidelines, Redelegation Guidelines) and fought
for acceptance of the latter within the ccTLD constituency (the joint
CENTR/IATLD effort in LA, which yielded a re-orientation of the Best Practices
as an appendix to the Service Contract, making the documents presentable to
ICANN as the unified opinion of the vast majority of ccTLD Managers - present at
the conference and otherwise.)

We collaborated with David Keegel [on the Board of auDA] on the Best Practice
document, and I spoke to him at some length in Melbourne. Still, we'd like to
know your opinion on the new RFC and on the ICANN process in general.

Best regards,

Gennady Pritsker
IATLD



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html