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

Mon Feb 17 01:26:42 UTC 2014

On 17/02/2014 12:28 p.m., Steve Crocker wrote:
> 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.

I understood the purpose of your email, but it was a rare opportunity 
for me to have a dig at you!

Actually the discussion does raise some interesting aspects, 
particularly in the new gTLD environment. There are a good many new 
gTLDs that are more aligned in principles to ccTLDs than to the legacy 
gTLDs - especially country, city and territory names, and also some 
local non-ASCII language gTLDs. Sovereign rights issues arise somewhat 
similarly as they do to ccTLDs, as do serving the local Internet 
community. The US Government "control" via the IANA contract should 
arguably be trumped by the greater rights of sovereignty and servicing 
the local community.

I wonder if ICANN would give any consideration to applications made for 
gTLDs under the auspices of RFC1591, rather than the new gTLD processes 
that have evolved since ICANN was created? Wouldn't there be greater 
vibrancy and diversity under the more simple framework created by 
RFC1591? Is ICANNs role to generate stock standard outputs, or to 
encourage real diversity?

Cheers

Keith