[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft

[Paul M Kane]

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most 
> importantly, are we considering the “principles and guidelines” 
> provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by 
> the IANA functions operator” or not?
>
> */[Chuck Gomes] I cannot answer that because I think that is an issue 
> for ccTLDs.  I would encourage those from the ccTLD community to 
> respond.  Besides serving as the coordinator for this subgroup, I have 
> primarily contributed to the gTLD side and tried to rely and respect 
> the expertise of those from the ccTLD community./*
>


I am and have been a ccTLD Manager for 18(ish) years - happy to help.  
What is the specific question?

I am not a member of the ccNSO - so can't speak for them.

Currently the authority to manage a ccTLD Registry is decentralised, 
empowering diversity to best serve their customer's needs.  ccTLD 
Registries are accountable to their local community, (have Policy 
development process that accommodate local culture, legal systems and 
operating environments) and are responsible for their entries in the 
IANA and Root Servers.

I thought it helpful to emphasis that for some ccTLDs centralising 
authority at ICANN is undesirable, hence:I agreed with the original 
draft that contained the following wording after para 3:

"As a quick example of a policy outlined within RFC1591 that has had 
significant repercussions, the document says this about the issue of 
re-delegation: "The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach 
agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change 
things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the 
designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in."

I am trying manage the many emails (in addition to my day job) as best I 
can - please ask a specific question and I will do my best to answer.

Best

Paul