[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi Keith,
 
thanks for this history. As I remember, part of the pressure on ccTLDs to enter into contractual relationship with ICANN (the proposed trilateral mechanism was nicknamed the T-Bone) was the plan, that ccTLD should pay for the IANA service (based on the number of name registrations under the given ccTLD). Among others, Sabine from DENIC rejected this as a matter of principle. The discussion triggered the elaboration of the GAC ccTLD principles and ICANN gave up the idea to push for contracts with ccTLD registries. Now ccTLDs make, if they wish, voluntary financial contributions. 
 
In my eyes this is a good example how the multistakeholder bottom up open and transparent process works. ICANN was in it early years, still a baby in the craddle, and had to learn a lot. And it learned. Slowly, but it stumbled forward. ICANN is still a teenager. But it has matured. It has still to learn more. In 2018 ICANN becomes a "twen" :-))). 
 
wolfgang 

________________________________

Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Keith Davidson
Gesendet: Mo 17.03.2014 23:17
An: discuss at 1net.org
Betreff: Re: [discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145



While my name is not Adiel, I am happy to respond to the question...

Back in ICANNs early days last century, .nz sought to update the IANA
record for the Technical Contact of .nz, which was initially completed
by IANA, and then undone. IANA, on instruction from ICANN, set the
record back to "University of Waikato" as the Technical Contact, whereas
by then the actual registry function was being operated by "The Internet
Society of New Zealand"'s subsidiary "Domainz".

The then ICANN CEO insisted that the above change was a "redelegation"
(which it was not, the initial friendly redelegation from the University
of Waikato to the Internet Society of New Zealand had been completed in
1995, and the transition of the Technical Contact was held back until
the register for .nz changed hands to Domainz, which was an ISOCNZ
subsidiary.

The only way ICANN would attend to the change of Technical Contact could
be attended to would require .nz having a 3-way contract between ICANN,
the Government of New Zealand and ISOCNZ. We did not believe this to be
legitimate, and certainly there was no agreed policy for ICANN to have
taken this stance, it was pure dictatorial arrogance.

Very few ccTLDs (maybe 2) succumbed to this pressure for contracts with
ICANN to achieve delegations or redelegations.

It took several years and a couple of CEOs later for ICANN to recognise
it did not have such rights over ccTLDs, and then began to attend to
these previously requested changes.

So it took more than 5 years to have an update to the root zone from the
legitimate operator of the top level domain to be put into effect. In
all of that time, the IANA Technical Contact was pointing to the
previous operator, and despite repeated requests from the .nz operator
to remedy, ICANN entrenched itself into its position thus contributing
to a broken Internet.

Cheers

Keith



On 17/03/2014 11:21 p.m., Steve Crocker wrote:
> Adiel,
>
> Do you know of any instances where updates to the root zone from the legitimate operator of the top level domain were not put into effect?  The U.S. has long-standing trading restrictions with Cube, North Korea, Iran and Syria, but those zones are treated like any others.
>
> Steve

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss