Whither the ccTLDs?
Date: Sunday September 15 2002, @05:10PM
Topic: Country-Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs)

One of the three most important changes the Blueprint ended up making to the status quo was its offering the ccTLDs a Supporting Organization of their very own. (The other two were the replacement of at-large representation with NomCom directors, and the formal jettisoning of the idea that ICANN policymaking is supposed to be consensus-based and meaningfully bottom-up.) But the Blueprint's proposal for a ccNSO fell far short of the ccTLDs' demands: that ICANN should be able to impose no policy on ccTLDs without their consensus support (meaning a 2/3 vote of the ccTLDs voting in each region); that it must be part of the ccSO function to determine which issues are "global" and therefore within ICANN jurisdiction in the first place; and that the ccTLDs must be able to name all of the members of their own SO Council, without carpetbaggers inserted by the NomCom. The ccTLD Adcom had urged that ICANN enter into a dialog to bridge the gap between the two positions.

We've now seen ICANN's response.

ICANN has chosen its own committee to flesh out details for ccNSO implementation, requesting the participation of just two members of the ccTLD Adcom. Others whom ICANN sees as uncompliant, such as Peter Dengate-Thrush and Nigel Roberts, are not invited. And the invitation letter is insistent that the committee must deliberate "within the framework of the Blueprint": nobody will be allowed "to re-argue decisions already made by the ICANN Board as embodied in the Blueprint." The ccTLD Adcom's response: "You will understand the temptation for the Adcom to regard this group as a top down device, cynically designed to provide evidence of support for the Blueprint . . . ."

ICANN is confident that it can get the MoU extended with or without the support of the ccTLDs. But if it wants to get the ccTLDs to sign contracts, it's going to have to find its way to adopting positions they'll actually support. So far, the cc's seem to be hanging tough. (Note also, in this regard, Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed Names Council resolution declaring that ICANN's failure to properly update ccTLD name servers is endangering Internet stability.)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Whither the ccTLDs? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: Whither the ccTLDs?
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday September 16 2002, @02:16PM (#9266)
User #2810 Info
Regarding the last paragraph above, ICANN CEO M. Stuart Lynn has now responded on the GA list to a question regarding Elisabeth Porteneuve's concerns as put forward by Danny Younger. Lynn denies that there is any cause for concern, then goes on to say
Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have not yet been completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy. See the FAQs at http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change the policy should proceed.
That supposed longstanding policy being used as a threat by ICANN has been covered before by ICANNWatch, first here, second here. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]

This article comes from ICANNWatch

The URL for this story is: