Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Elisabeth these are beautifully laid out RFCs.

Why if I am the ccTLD manager of Xanadu, dotXU should I follow them?

Eric

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> Dany,
>
> The Re-delegation issues are very complex ones, and the ccTLD
> have work in progress.
>
> No matter how we consider the initial designation of ccTLD managers
> (in 1980s it was hardly an establishment), none of them have an
> international immunity. That is the reality of facts.
>
> When the ccTLD manager has a presence in the country or territory
> to which the two letter code relates,
> the re-delegation has to be seen as a purely local issue.
> Only the local Internet community including the government based
> on the legal system of the community will guarantee that the
> requirements of the community are fulfilled. There are however
> duties attached to the function of ccTLD manager and to the
> corresponding local internet community and its government:
> stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> Internet users.
>
> The RFC1591 issued in 1994 is of screaming actuality:
>   a.. "The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level
>       domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code,
>       and the global Internet community.";
>   b.. "It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities"
>       and "service" to the community.";
>   c.. "The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the
>       domain that request domain names."
>
> ICANN's mission statement with respect to ccTLDs has been documented
> in the past:
>
>    a) The White Paper[1] identifies that the political role of
>       ICANN relates only to matters of the gTLDs and NSI's monopoly.
>       Notably, the role in relation to ccTLDs is constrained to
>       that of technical co-ordination.
>       ccTLDs are mentioned twice in the document:
>
>       * in DNS Today Management, "More than 200 national, or
>         country-code, TLDs (ccTLDs) are administered by their
>         corresponding governments or by private entities with
>         the appropriate national government's acquiescence."
>
>       * in Creation of the New Corporation and Management of
>         the DNS, "Of course, national governments now have,
>         and will continues to have, authority to manages or
>         establish policy for to their own ccTLDs."
>
>    b) The first Memorandum of Understanding[2] does not refer to
>       ICANN's role in relation to ccTLDs.
>
>    c) ICANN's Bylaws consider ccTLDs as one of the seven partners
>       of the DNSO, which relates to the gTLD space.
>
> [1] www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
> [2] www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:01 PM
> Subject: Redelegation issues
>
> > Dear Elizabeth,
> >
> > I would appreciate getting your perspective on the article below (first
> > posted to the NCDNHC list).  It raises the issue of what constitutes an
> > appropriate redelegation process.  If a sovereign nation-state has passed
> > laws stipulating that the local government will take over the
> > responsibilities of the current TLD manager, does ICANN have the right to
> > interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by refusing to
> > redelegate until such time as there is agreement between the present
> > administrator, government, and significant interested parties?  This
> strikes
> > me as equivalent to the exercise of foreign policy powers (that I don't
> > believe have ever been granted to ICANN by the US government).
> >
> > I don't yet have a set opinion on this subject, so your thoughts would be
> of
> > help in understanding the issue better.
> >
> > >From Business Day (South Africa) 3 June 2002
> >
> > State's plan on internet domain names raises alarm Political
> > Correspondent CAPE TOWN A proposal by the parliamentary communications
> > committee to establish a section 21 company to manage domain names on
> > the internet in SA has raised alarm bells about a looming crisis that
> > could see all internet connections in the country cut off.
> >
> > Supported by the communications department and the African National
> > Congress, the proposals in the Electronic Communications and
> > Transactions Bill on setting up a domain name authority are vehemently
> > opposed by opposition parties and the current administrator of the ZA
> > domain.
> >
> > The committee plans to finalise and vote on the bill today . Much of the
> > chapter on the domain names was approved and voted on Friday but could
> > be discussed again today. Government is opposed to the current
> > administrative system for the ZA domain name, which it says is
> > "monopolistic" and without a regulatory framework to manage the expected
> > explosive growth of the internet.
> >
> > Communications chairman Nkenke Kekana said that the domain name
> > authority had to be "representative, accountable to all South Africans
> > and proactive in promoting the internet".
> > In terms of the bill, the communications minister would appoint a panel
> > which would recommend nominated candidates to be appointed to the board
> > of a section 21 firm.
> >
> > But domain name administrator Mike Lawrie, who is one of the cochairmen
> > of Namespace ZA, which will take over the administration in future, has
> > objected to the excessive powers the minister would wield over the
> > domain name system in SA.
> >
> > Lawrie said this was "quite unacceptable". He warned of a "national
> > disaster", saying he would not hand over the administration if
> > government interference in the internet was provided for in law.
> >
> > If Lawrie refused to get himself licensed as required by the bill, this
> > would mean he could no longer continue operating and that the
> > administration of the ZA domain name would collapse.
> > This would mean that normal internet and e-mail connections would no
> > longer function.
> >
> > "The vast majority of internet connections in and into this country will
> > simply not happen, because the ZA domain name servers will grind to a
> > halt and make all subdomains of ZA totally unreachable," Lawrie said.
> >
> > The gov.za domain name would also not work. "Parliament cannot pass
> > legislation and expect that the internet will kowtow to that
> > legislation. It does not work that way. The legislation must in keeping
> > with the standards of the internet, or it will lead to problems.
> >
> > "There are very clear standards laid down for how a redelegation of a
> > country code domain shall take place," he said. For the redelegation to
> > meet international standards laid down by the Internet Corporation for
> > Assigned Names and Numbers there has to be agreement between Lawrie, as
> > the present administrator, government, and significant interested
> > parties.
> >
> > Democratic Alliance communications spokeswoman Dene Smuts said the bill
> > "bald-facedly expropriates" the existing domain name authority. She
> > rejected government's rationale for a new administrative system, saying
> > a domain name authority did not and could not roll out services.
> >
> > See also:
> > http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2002/0206031206.asp?O=TE
> >
> > Controversial ECT Bill discussions come to an end
> > BY PHILLIP DE WET, ITWEB NEWS EDITOR
> > [SNIP]
> > During the weekend, Andile Ngcaba, director-general of the Department of
> > Communications, said an amended version would see an intermediary panel
> > inserted into the process. The minister would appoint the independent
> > panel, which would in turn appoint the directors of the domain
> > authority.
> >
> > But current .za administrator Mike Lawrie, who has controlled the domain
> > since its inception, has vowed not to hand control over to a government
> > he believes not technically capable of handling the fragile system. He
> > has warned that domain names, and e-mail addresses, that use the popular
> > .co.za suffix could "go dark" due to improper management.
> >
> > Lawrie has, since 1998, been involved in setting up an organisation to
> > take over from him. Such a body, Namespace SA, was formed in September
> > last  year. Government was invited to participate in the body and
> > appoint representatives to its board, but declined.
> >
> > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
> > is responsible for globally overseeing the domain name system, requires
> > the consent of the current administrator for any re-delegation of
> > responsibility.
> > [SNIP]
> >
>
> --
> 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

--
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