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

Sun Feb 16 23:28:03 UTC 2014

Keith,

Thanks for the additional details regarding the ccTLDs and their relationship to ICANN.  I purposefully limited what I said about the ccTLDs to avoid covering these nuances.  I mainly wanted to highlight the crisp distinction contractually between gTLDs and ccTLDs.  gTLDs exist only via contract from ICANN and necessarily adhere to the conditions of that contract.  That includes specification of who speaks for the gTLD and hence who IANA listens to regarding changes to the gTLD's portion of the root zone.

The relationships with the ccTLDs rest on other and, as you've described, more varied arrangements, and hence the question of who IANA listens to when a change is requested for a ccTLD are also more subtle.

Steve

On Feb 16, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> 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