[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <email@example.com>
> The problem with that perspective is that it seeks to ignore all IANA
> history and on-going processes. It shows no real concern for making
> progress, instead focusing on the opportinities provided in an abstract
> sandbox for inventing new procedures.
> This is much like saying "you did a great job for 15years, now we will
> ignore your work and start all over."
I think the truth lies in the middle. Certainly IANA established precedents
in RFC 920 and 1591 for the delegation of TLDs. No one I know of wants to
ignore those precedents because regardless of one's policy perspective
throwing them out would make things less predictable and (politically)
However, at the time of RFC 920 there were about 300 hosts on the Internet,
and in 1994, when 1591 was drafted, Jon Postel was just beginning to
struggle, none too successfully, with the political and economic forces set
in motion by the commercialization of the web. In my opinion IANA and ISOC
never adjusted successfully to the problems posed by commercialization.
It should be obvious that IANA lost the ability to define procedurs for the
addition of new TLDs between 94 and 97. Draft Postel (1996), which proposed
adding 150 new TLDs to the root, was endorsed by both Postel and the
Internet Society Board, and yet, it did not happen. The gTLD-MoU was also
endorsed by Postel, ISOC, and even ITU and INTA, yet its proposed new TLDs
were not added. Clearly, there was a need for a new institution and new
ICANN and its DNSO were supposed to be the solution to that problem.
Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's
DNSO. It is in the White Paper. DNSO is not an "abstract sandbox," it is
supposed to be the solution of three years of rancourous debate over
delegation authority. And it is a debate that the European Commission played
a major role in shaping the outcome of. In particular, it was the EU that
insisted that no new TLDs be created until a new, representative
international organization was established.
> .EU is being pursued within the ccTLD umbrella. ccTLDs pertain to
> governments and similar authorities. The European Union clearly and
> fits within that scope. That leaves only the two, strictly procedural
> questions of its having an entry in the ISO table and the EU clearly
> designating its administrative authority for liaising on DNS issues.
> are few issues within IANA/ICANN that could be clearer or simpler.
On very narrow, technical grounds, one could say that if the Europeans
succeed in getting .EU added to the ISO-3166 list that they can get a TLD.
But for anyone who's aware of the history and attuned to the policy
implications, this is an extraordinary act of bad faith and manipulation.
There are probably 50 other regional and international entities that could
apply on similar terms. This process could succeed in politicizing and
corrupting the ISO list as well.
m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/