[wg-c] Re: Are cc:TLDs included in our Charter?

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

>ccTLDS are obviously a very touchy political issue,
>both outside ICANN and in it.

I'm afraid the obviousness has escaped me. Jerri Clausing (NYT) quotes
Mike Roberts (ICANN CEO) to the contrary as well (source BENTON-COMPOLICY
list, Communications-Related Headlines for 12/06/99). The series of steps
from United Nations Statistics Division to the iso3166/MA to the IANA has
never excited comment in the past. Of course, Anick Jesdanun (AP) writes
to the contrary, and some may prefer his reading, which in substance has
a California 501(c)(3) identified as an International Treaty Organization,
or a body conducting foreign policy, independent of that of California, or
the United States. Jesdanun's reading makes for greater entertainment.

As neither writers email addresses are available to me, I've cc'd their
respective organizational points of contact.

>                          ...  Is creation of new ccTLDs
>an issue that should be referred to Working Group C?

No. See the Charter.

>What criteria are being used?

WG-C's charter calls for three deliverables in response to three questions,
the seven position papers offer responses to the first question (should,
how many, when and which, what next, and charter). Nominally, assuming that
WG-C hasn't simply collapsed under the weight of rhetoric, a proposed "Call
for Tenders" and a proposed registration and data maintenance procedure are
specific criteria which, if recommended by the NC and adopted by the Board,
will become the criteria to be used.

>                          ...  Does ICANN have the authority
>to require new ccTLDs to accept conditions to which other ccTLDs
>are not subject (e.g., the UDRP)?

That depends upon your model of ICANN's fundamental authority. A lot of
WG-C, mostly B paper supporters, hold ICANN lacks the authority to engage
in a wide range of substantive policy. AFAIK the rest of WG-C participants
disagree. Personally, I think the editor of DOT is not to be triffled with
or turned into an ideological plaything.

Note that the IANA has engaged in "inconsistent" policies w.r.t. the ccTLDs
throughout its (Jon's actually) ownership of the issue, and the idea that
ICANN can not alter the conditions the IANA employed when .UK was added to
DOT is rather a strong restriction on ICANN's policy capacity.

The UDRP takes effect w.r.t. specific operators and registrars of specific
registries (gTLDs). The announced dates of effect do not include any ccTLD
registry or operator.

>Finally, is it the responsibility of the DNSO to raise these issues
>and define its own authority, or do we assume that ICANN's unilateral
>action is a conscious expression of policy?

An interesting question, but one which would be better asked if not in the
context of this offered issue, given the discussion above.

Cheers,
Eric
Principal Author, Position Paper E