[discuss] P1 version 2 - I will update from time to time - this one is important

Jorge Amodio jmamodio at gmail.com
Sun Jan 19 23:52:43 UTC 2014

> Two, I assume that there have been controversial/problematic changes to the root zone. Have there been? How were they dealt with? There is the possibility that some are complaining just because it is the US that has the final approval. Still, it will be useful to get those who complain to put forward their concerns as clearly as possible so they can be addressed. 

There has been some issues in the past but you need to separate into different groups.

One of the most controversial and publicized additions to the root zone during the "sponsored" TLDs was .xxx. Regardless of mixed opinions about the content and use that may be represented by the sTLD, and for one or other reasons people supported it or not, there was a lot of pressure from conservative and religious groups to block the process, some perceived as interference from parts of the USG to veto the addition to the root zone.

But the real controversy which ended with and Internal Review Process and lawsuit, was based in the issue if 
ICANN did or not proceed according to the established processes at that time. To make the story short (and many on this list were active part of it) the IRP found ICANN did NOT follow the process and the .xxx is in place in the root zone and the world didn't end.

Another group that had and eventually once in a while generates problems are ccTLDs. During the early days of the implementation of DNS ccTLDs were delegated in good faith to whoever happen to be the first one (person or institution) asking to take the responsibility of managing the ccTLD (ownership is the wrong way of thinking, and ccTLDs are not sovereign objects of governments.) 

Over time when Internet became ubiquitous particularly in developing countries, claims to transfer control of some ccTLDs started, some pretty straightforward others not so. And this will continue to be a sources of issues at different levels as demonstrated in the last ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires regarding the Malvinas or Falkland Islands (.fk).

Something my fellow Argentineans making the fuss about it during the meeting (IMHO totally out of context and place, regardless of my personal opinion who the islands belong to) failed to understand showing a complete lack of knowledge is that it is ISO and not ICANN who assigns the two letters code, the original delegation for the ccTLD took place in 1997, and a redelegation was requested and approved following process established in ICANN in 2005 and as far as I remember nobody (even the Argentinean government) from the GAC presented objections to the redelegation that took place following process and the report has been available since on IANA's website.

There are other cases of conflictive ccTLD redelegations of changes.


More information about the discuss mailing list