[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
steve at shinkuro.com
Mon Feb 17 01:47:20 UTC 2014
On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:26 PM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> On 17/02/2014 12:28 p.m., Steve Crocker wrote:
>> 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!
:) No problem.
> 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?
Several years ago I tried to stimulate some discussion along a similar line. The political/contractual distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs turned out to be so dominant that it was impossible to draw the lines any other way.
I think the only way to accomplish what you have in mind is to to work within the ICANN framework to bring RFC 1591 ideas into to the GNSO policy framework. I have no idea whether this might be feasible.
Meanwhile, additional ccTLDs have been created for IDN-ccTLDs. That's probably not exactly what you have in mind, but it touches on your idea.
More information about the discuss