.cx was originally delegated to a now-defunct company that signed an MOU with Dot cx Ltd. Local bodies in the Christmas Islands approved of the takeover, but "IANA" balked, saying that it would not OK the change until and unless the local government -- effectively the distant Australian government -- agreed (ICANN also wants the defunct company to give its approval -- something which may be difficult since it no longer exists). Meanwhile, however, the Australian government appears to have an agenda of its own: get control over all the ccTLDs it can.

The fate of the Christmas Islands ccTLD is caught up in heady political currents: Christmas Island is a Dependency of Australia, administered from Canberra by the Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories. Much of .cx's difficulty with IANA may be linked to the Australian government's desire to bring the .au ccTLD to heel. But the conditions being imposed by the Australians seem pretty stiff: "we reserve the power to terminate you at any time" is about the size of it. (My favorite, though is this one: "This letter of endorsement cannot be relied upon by Dot CX as an enforceable agreement.") You can read them for yourself in these four large .jpg images of the Australian government's latest letter: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.

Where ICANN (aka IANA) gets the requirement that the local government sign off on an uncontested, friendly, transfer of a ccTLD is an interesting question. The requirement does not appear in RFC 1591. IANA's CCTLD News Memo #1 (23 October 1997) does say,

An additional factor has become very important since RFC 1591 was written: the desires of the government of the country. The IANA takes the desires of the government of the country very seriously, and will take them as a major consideration in any transition discussion.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the government to have a say in the redelegation of a ccTLD when there is some sort of controversy. As an abstract matter, I'm even prepared to accept that a government has full sovereign legislative power to subject a ccTLD registry located in its territory to any rule it can lawfully adopt (recall that ccTLDs must have a local presence). So it seems reasonable to me for ICANN to pay close attention to what local governments say in cases of contested redelegations, if only because they have the ultimate power to force their wishes on a ccTLD anyway. But this is different. It's not a contested case, there are no other claimants, there is no suggestion of mismanaging the domain or unsuitability to task. In the absence of any suggestion of wrongdoing, should ICANN be a party to the imposition of onerous conditions on a ccTLD, or should it leave that job to the domestic authorities who, in this case at least, might have to do it in a more public and democratic manner?

Last but not least is the question of process. This matter has been running for more than a year. Where are the public notices from IANA? What are the relevant procedures? Who is in charge of this issue: the Vice-President, Secretary & General Counsel? The ICANN CEO? Certainly not the Board.

Surely this case argues, yet again, for far more openness and transparency about what "IANA" is doing and how it does it.