[ga] Re: Redelegation issues

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Dany,

The Re-delegation issues are very complex ones, and the ccTLD
have work in progress.

No matter how we consider the initial designation of ccTLD managers
(in 1980s it was hardly an establishment), none of them have an
international immunity. That is the reality of facts.

When the ccTLD manager has a presence in the country or territory
to which the two letter code relates,
the re-delegation has to be seen as a purely local issue.
Only the local Internet community including the government based
on the legal system of the community will guarantee that the
requirements of the community are fulfilled. There are however
duties attached to the function of ccTLD manager and to the
corresponding local internet community and its government:
stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
Internet users.

The RFC1591 issued in 1994 is of screaming actuality:
  a.. "The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level
      domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code,
      and the global Internet community.";
  b.. "It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities"
      and "service" to the community.";
  c.. "The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the
      domain that request domain names."


ICANN's mission statement with respect to ccTLDs has been documented 
in the past:

   a) The White Paper[1] identifies that the political role of 
      ICANN relates only to matters of the gTLDs and NSI's monopoly. 
      Notably, the role in relation to ccTLDs is constrained to 
      that of technical co-ordination. 
      ccTLDs are mentioned twice in the document:

      * in DNS Today Management, "More than 200 national, or 
        country-code, TLDs (ccTLDs) are administered by their 
        corresponding governments or by private entities with 
        the appropriate national government's acquiescence."

      * in Creation of the New Corporation and Management of 
        the DNS, "Of course, national governments now have, 
        and will continues to have, authority to manages or 
        establish policy for to their own ccTLDs."

   b) The first Memorandum of Understanding[2] does not refer to 
      ICANN's role in relation to ccTLDs.

   c) ICANN's Bylaws consider ccTLDs as one of the seven partners 
      of the DNSO, which relates to the gTLD space.

[1] www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
[2] www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm


Elisabeth Porteneuve
--


----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: Redelegation issues


> Dear Elizabeth,
>
> I would appreciate getting your perspective on the article below (first
> posted to the NCDNHC list).  It raises the issue of what constitutes an
> appropriate redelegation process.  If a sovereign nation-state has passed
> laws stipulating that the local government will take over the
> responsibilities of the current TLD manager, does ICANN have the right to
> interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by refusing to
> redelegate until such time as there is agreement between the present
> administrator, government, and significant interested parties?  This
strikes
> me as equivalent to the exercise of foreign policy powers (that I don't
> believe have ever been granted to ICANN by the US government).
>
> I don't yet have a set opinion on this subject, so your thoughts would be
of
> help in understanding the issue better.
>
> >From Business Day (South Africa) 3 June 2002
>
> State's plan on internet domain names raises alarm Political
> Correspondent CAPE TOWN A proposal by the parliamentary communications
> committee to establish a section 21 company to manage domain names on
> the internet in SA has raised alarm bells about a looming crisis that
> could see all internet connections in the country cut off.
>
> Supported by the communications department and the African National
> Congress, the proposals in the Electronic Communications and
> Transactions Bill on setting up a domain name authority are vehemently
> opposed by opposition parties and the current administrator of the ZA
> domain.
>
> The committee plans to finalise and vote on the bill today . Much of the
> chapter on the domain names was approved and voted on Friday but could
> be discussed again today. Government is opposed to the current
> administrative system for the ZA domain name, which it says is
> "monopolistic" and without a regulatory framework to manage the expected
> explosive growth of the internet.
>
> Communications chairman Nkenke Kekana said that the domain name
> authority had to be "representative, accountable to all South Africans
> and proactive in promoting the internet".
> In terms of the bill, the communications minister would appoint a panel
> which would recommend nominated candidates to be appointed to the board
> of a section 21 firm.
>
> But domain name administrator Mike Lawrie, who is one of the cochairmen
> of Namespace ZA, which will take over the administration in future, has
> objected to the excessive powers the minister would wield over the
> domain name system in SA.
>
> Lawrie said this was "quite unacceptable". He warned of a "national
> disaster", saying he would not hand over the administration if
> government interference in the internet was provided for in law.
>
> If Lawrie refused to get himself licensed as required by the bill, this
> would mean he could no longer continue operating and that the
> administration of the ZA domain name would collapse.
> This would mean that normal internet and e-mail connections would no
> longer function.
>
> "The vast majority of internet connections in and into this country will
> simply not happen, because the ZA domain name servers will grind to a
> halt and make all subdomains of ZA totally unreachable," Lawrie said.
>
> The gov.za domain name would also not work. "Parliament cannot pass
> legislation and expect that the internet will kowtow to that
> legislation. It does not work that way. The legislation must in keeping
> with the standards of the internet, or it will lead to problems.
>
> "There are very clear standards laid down for how a redelegation of a
> country code domain shall take place," he said. For the redelegation to
> meet international standards laid down by the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers there has to be agreement between Lawrie, as
> the present administrator, government, and significant interested
> parties.
>
> Democratic Alliance communications spokeswoman Dene Smuts said the bill
> "bald-facedly expropriates" the existing domain name authority. She
> rejected government's rationale for a new administrative system, saying
> a domain name authority did not and could not roll out services.
>
> See also:
> http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2002/0206031206.asp?O=TE
>
> Controversial ECT Bill discussions come to an end
> BY PHILLIP DE WET, ITWEB NEWS EDITOR
> [SNIP]
> During the weekend, Andile Ngcaba, director-general of the Department of
> Communications, said an amended version would see an intermediary panel
> inserted into the process. The minister would appoint the independent
> panel, which would in turn appoint the directors of the domain
> authority.
>
> But current .za administrator Mike Lawrie, who has controlled the domain
> since its inception, has vowed not to hand control over to a government
> he believes not technically capable of handling the fragile system. He
> has warned that domain names, and e-mail addresses, that use the popular
> .co.za suffix could "go dark" due to improper management.
>
> Lawrie has, since 1998, been involved in setting up an organisation to
> take over from him. Such a body, Namespace SA, was formed in September
> last  year. Government was invited to participate in the body and
> appoint representatives to its board, but declined.
>
> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
> is responsible for globally overseeing the domain name system, requires
> the consent of the current administrator for any re-delegation of
> responsibility.
> [SNIP]
>


--
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