M. Stuart Lynn was asked that by ccTLD managers at Accra [See 4.2]. The relevant questions and answers are reproduced below. -g|
Q: In your proposal, there is only a place for the ccTLDs in ICANN, who have a contract with ICANN. The ccTLDs have worked hard on a draft contract but got a response with an unacceptable contract from ICANN. That is also a problem.
A: Each ccTLD is different and has different reasons why an agreement cannot be reached. I am just laying out the consequences of not reaching an agreement.
Q: Why did the USG not enter an agreement with the dot US domain name with ICANN?
A: That's a very good question. It's an in-process discussion and you should ask them that.
Q: Why was the dot US domain re-delegated before entering into a contract?
A: The US had the authority to do it and there was an emergency re-delegation as a result. The reality is that ICANN does not have control over the root server. There was a lot of ICANN dialogue in the process.
Q: What is the official definition of 'emergency re-delegation'?
A: The IANA encounters a situation where some change of name server is necessary. For some reason, the trustees of a domain name are not able to act, or not willing to act and re-delegation needs to be made in order to obtain interoperability.
Without an agreement, re-delegation is always a risk. Some of the concerns you have may happen whether there is an agreement or not.
I'd like to urge the ccTLDs, let this be addressed to the Board. There is some communication problem that the Board does not see some of your concerns.
Q: The 'contracts' in the proposal is a critical issue. Currently there is no re-delegation done without a contract. Is there any process in place if we would like to raise this issue and change this principle, how could we do it?
A: If you do not care about the transfer of the root from the USG, you'll have to make that known very clearly. I'm willing to look at different solutions for the problems we have and may take it to the board if we need to.