[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Sun Feb 16 22:24:04 UTC 2014

Dear Keith,

thank you for this very comprehensive analyzis I will certainly 
professionnally use (I understand that we are an open mailing list 
and therefore that this text of yours is public domain). What would 
be interesting would be to consider the relations between ccTLDs and 
a VGNIC specialized areas like EDI, banks or social networks, a 
natural language or a large country.

I just went and see your site. And I liked what I read:
- InternetNZ was set up, years ago, to keep the Internet open and uncaptureable
- a better world through a better Internet
- We will work with all political parties in order to get the best 
for New Zealand's Internet.
- We're saying, these days, that we are also about making sure that 
the people who use the Internet are getting the most out of it.

This seems to raise a question for all of us: what is a better 
internet? Your text seems to imply an internet which brings a  better 
world. I think we can all agree, however the IG problem is not to 
decide what is a better world: this is the politicians job. Yet they 
do not agree and we want, like you, work with all of them.

This seems to be a loop?
Is that not actually our real problem?
A problem we might tend to hide too easily behind a supposed 
political divide about the US role?

M G

At 22:48 16/02/2014, Keith Davidson wrote:
>On 17/02/2014 9:23 a.m., Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>On 2014-02-16 21:19, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>In contrast, there are no formal contracts between ccTLD operators and
>>>ICANN nor between root server operators and ICANN.  Those are covered
>>>under less formal arrangements that predate ICANN.
>>
>>...but in some of those cases arrangements exists between those players
>>and other parties than ICANN, for example local governments or
>>arrangements to multistakeholder groups (like the membership
>>organisations/arrangements around some ccTLDs).
>
>Steve may not be quite 100% accurate with his commen "there are no 
>formal contracts between ccTLD operators and ICANN", as there are 
>possibly a handful that have a formal contract with ICANN. And there 
>are so few opportunities where Steve is wrong, so it requires some teasing out.
>
>There are several ways ccTLDs can formalise their relationship with 
>ICANN. But there is no obligation on a ccTLD to have any formal 
>relationship. Formal relationships include:
>
>1. Contract - very few ccTLDs have a contract with ICANN, and these 
>were usually put in place under pressure from ICANN during 
>redelegations, otherwise widely avoided - approaches a gTLD contract 
>in terms of ICANNs role and subservience of the ccTLD operator. The 
>ccTLD operator is required to pay contract fees to ICANN.
>
>2. Accountability Framework (AF) some ccTLDs voluntarily entered 
>into an AF between the ccTLD operator, the Government and ICANN, in 
>which each party recognises the others roles and responsibilities 
>and requires some compulsory reporting from the ccTLD to Government. 
>Usually involves a firm commitment to pay fees to ICANN.
>
>3. Exchange of Letters (EOL) - a large number of ccTLDs have chosen 
>this fairly soft option to exchange letters with ICANN, which merely 
>recognises the rights and responsibilities of both parties, and goes 
>no further than agreeing some obligation of the ccTLD to comply with 
>the broad public policy requirements of RFC1591. Generally 
>encourages the ccTLD to pay a voluntary scaled contribution to ICANN
>
>4. Some ccTLDs elect to not enter into any relationship with ICANN. 
>There are possibly a few too who refuse to recognise ICANN at all. 
>Som ccTLDs also join the ccNSO in ICANN, but this does not impose 
>any obligation or recognition requirement on that ccTLD. More than 
>147 ccTLDs are members of the ccNSO, and less than 100 ccTLDs are not members.
>
>Also, teasing out Patriks comment above, the ccTLD community have 
>had some very strong "first principles" including:
>
>a. that subsidiarity applies (local laws, guidelines and 
>requirements set by the local internet community take precedence 
>over global policies)
>
>b. that there are seldom "one size fits all" solutions suited to 
>ccTLD operations
>
>c. policies applicable to ccTLDs will be developed in a bottom-up, 
>open and transparent, consensus based decision making way, i.e. all 
>the key elements of multi-stakeholderism.
>
>As a result there is a rich tapestry of models of construct of ccTLD 
>operations, from individual people (as a legacy of the early Postel 
>delegations) to open membership societies through to corporate for 
>profit organisations and sometimes Government organisations.
>
>There is no correct model or solution that can be applied globally 
>and the diversity of the ccTLD world is to be applauded. It seems a 
>shame to me that gTLD operators have agreed to succumb to ICANN 
>imposed policies in order to get delegations of new gTLDs, and the 
>restrictive policies and procedures is leading to more like a "one 
>size fits all" solution in the gTLD space.
>
>Cheers
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss