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

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Mon Feb 17 05:36:38 UTC 2014


Much though this is interesting I wonder if it is a priority to work on this 
amount of detail at this point of time?

If we are to achieve something through 1net and the presence here of many 
stakeholder groups, I think we will have to concentrate on high level 
statement of directions, some high level principles, and an agreed message 
that is also likely to be broadly supported by governmental stakeholders. 
This is not the forum for detailed technical process evolution.

I think that statement that we need would be along the lines of a 
recommendation that the previous IANA processes be internalised within 
ICANN.  ICANN (not 1net, or it would never get done) would be asked to come 
up with a set of procedures and processes in consultation with stakeholders.

I don't think any of the processes are rocket science. They are  no more 
difficult than the sorts of processes that banks, hospitals, and many 
businesses manage on a daily basis, with high levels of  checks and balances 
to ensure integrity and security of outputs. It's not going to be difficult 
to write such processes once there is a clear direction.

The reasons why this is "problem no 1" are not technical. They are 
political, in that the current antiquated arrangements seeing a unilateral 
authorisation role for USA is unacceptable to almost all stakeholders and 
has to be replaced. A multilateral solution (such as ITU management) is also 
unacceptable to a number of key stakeholders. There we are left with no 
choice but to internalise the previous IANA processes within ICANN - 
definitely the preferred direction in discussions here thus far -or face the 
consequences of multiple roots and a fragmented internet. We really do have 
to act on this and devote our energies towards a political solution which I 
believe is now achievable.

It's a multistakeholder solution, which is the buzzword for EU, USA, many 
other governments, and 1net. If we can't do this we might as well throw 
multistakeholder out the window.

Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Crocker
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:59 PM
To: Keith Davidson
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

The new ccTLD path applied only to existing countries and territories.  I 
think Oceania would have to get an entry in ISO 3166-1 first.


On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> On 17/02/2014 2:47 p.m., Steve Crocker wrote:
>>> 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.
> Agreed, that the IDN ccTLDs created on the fasttrack were subject to the 
> RFC1591 requirements only, considerably simpler / cheaper / quicker than 
> the ICANN gTLD process. Which does prove that ICANN can accept new 
> non-ISO-3166 ccTLD applications (and RFC1591 determined that the ISO-3166 
> list was the one to be used for delegations of ccTLDs). Which leads the 
> way to the interesting possibility that aspiring gTLDs could use RFC1591 
> instead of the ICANN gTLD process - which might be relevant to 
> territories, regions or sub-regions that are not recognised on ISO-3166. 
> For example, the Oceania region might apply for .oceania...
> Cheers
> Keith

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list