Re: Relations with the ccTLDs (was Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

[Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl>]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 05:44:49AM -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> ICP-1 is simply a statement of long-standing practice and doesn't seem to 
> represent new policy. ICP-1 makes explicit a way to implement the policy
> outlined in RFC 1591 but doesn't appear to create new policy, as I understand it.

Dear Vint,

There are several important differences between RFC 1591 and ICP-1, so it
cannot be said that one just makes explicit the implementation of the other:

1) ICP-1 says: "The desires of the government of a country with regard
   to delegation of a ccTLD are taken very seriously. The IANA will make
   them a major consideration in any TLD delegation/transfer discussions."
   RFC 1591 doesn't mention governments at all.

   Jon Postel admitted explicitly in the ccTLD News Memo #1
   <http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-news1.htm> that this was a rule the
   IANA started using after RFC 1591 was issued ("An additional factor has
   become very important since RFC 1591 was written: the desires of the
   government of the country.").

2) ICP-1 says: "Because of its responsibilities for the DNS, the IANA must
   be granted access to all TLD zones on a continuing basis."
   This rule is not in RFC 1591 and, as you know, has been the source of
   much disagreement between the IANA and ccTLDs.

So, Peter's question remains relevant. When the Board adopted the numbering
system for ICPs and retroactively validated the number for ICP-1, did it
also approve the changes in policy that ICP-1 introduced?

Patricio Poblete
--
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