[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] ccTLDs - was Names Community vs the other two communities

[Paul M Kane]

(Sorry for the delay in replying, I am doing this CWG role in my spare 
time).

James Gannon wrote:
> On the subject of non-participating ccTLD’s, would bringing the 
> proposed organisational change that would bring control to an 
> independent entity really change anything in the status quo?
I am not sure what is meant by "non-participating" ccTLDs.

For clarity, _all_ ccTLDs participate in the IANA database and most 
ccTLDs want to retain the status quo - namely that they are exclusively 
responsible (and liable) for managing their entries in the IANA database 
and accountable to their users (including Government) under the laws of 
the jurisdiction in which the Registry is based.

Since year dot, the "legacy ccTLDs" prefer to follow the technical 
standards set by the IETF and to determine Policies based on local 
procedures that accord with local customs, laws and user community needs.

More recently, a second group of ccTLD Registries have emerged that have 
been asking ICANN to "share" the responsibility (and liability) for 
their entries in the IANA database.  ICANN has (rightly) asked the 
ccTLDs registries who want ICANN to be involved in their operations to 
determine "Best Practice Polices" for ICANN's involvement.

So please make the distinction between those "legacy ccTLDs" that have 
always served their respective community and shielded the IANA from 
liability (whilst adhering to local/national laws, culture, and 
operating environments) and those that want contracts with ICANN (under 
the US legal system) to share the responsibility (and liability) for 
managing the ccTLD Registry's entry in the IANA database.

> If these ccTLD’s are not participating within the current structure 
> are they likely to change that stance with a new IANA entity? 

Rest assured, many ccTLDs welcome the opportunity to revert back to the 
automated IANA processes that existed prior to ICANN and if that needs a 
new entity so be it.
Currently IANA is a separate department within ICANN and the IANA staff 
have done a good job at serving both the "legacy ccTLD" and the 
"contracted (cc)TLD" groups and the pre-requisite for a new IANA entity 
has yet to be justified.

When the IANA was administered by Jon Postel - he purposefully empowered 
each ccTLD Registry to directly manage (and be exclusively responsible 
for) their entries in the IANA database via an interface provided by the 
then Network Solutions.

ICANN in 2006 welcomed the opportunity to provide such automated 
interfaces for the legacy ccTLDs but were prevented by NTIA who wanted 
to have manual oversight of each change request.

In the 2012 IANA contract, NTIA recognised the benefits of automation 
and clause C.2.9.2.e specifically encourages IANA to provide end-to-end 
root zone automation - but IANA grappled with the issue of NTIA's manual 
oversight - so little changed.

Without NTIA, the IANA can once again serve the legacy ccTLD directly - 
in a manner very similar to the Numbers community - ie devolved 
responsibility.


>
> If the future organisational change remains open to their 
> participation and/or input then from that organisations standpoint 
> there would be no change from the current situation?
> While improvement of the process is a component of the transition if 
> they do not wish to change from their current stance then I don’t see 
> why this would become an issue?
The ccTLD community is very diverse, and rest assured just because some 
ccTLD Manager have never been to an ICANN meeting does not mean they 
fail to serve their community well.

Some legacy ccTLDs, especially those run by a Government (contractor) 
are unable to engage with a private sector organisation in a foreign 
jurisdiction without specific permission (which may never be 
forthcoming).  This should not be a surprise, even the .US ccTLD 
Registry contractor cannot implement any policies or procedures or 
execute any agreements without the prior approval of NTIA - clause 
C.3.2.2 of .US registry contract*.
*
In summary, there is general support for the NTIA to stand back from its 
oversight role and general support amongst the Registries that support 
an independent IANA that serves their needs.  Forcing a ccTLD to 
surrender sovereignty to an external body/jurisdiction would present a 
problem for many legacy ccTLDs and Governments.

>
> Maybe Im missing a key point here?
  The contracted ccTLDs and gTLDs have very similar perspectives but 
such Registries have already lost their ability for self-accountability, 
and they may need the independent accountability "uber-IANA" being 
discussed.  For the legacy ccTLDs there is no need for an "uber-IANA" 
accountability mechanism as it would inherently trigger a loss of 
sovereignty.

  I think the key issue is to ensure all users of  IANA's services can 
be accommodated without any one usurping the standing of another IANA 
user - so there are likely to be two, may be three modus operandi within 
the IANA from the names community.

Many of us have spent decades fostering a universally accessible 
Internet, but fragmentation of the legacy system has always been the 
pariah and without sensitive and respectful handling, fragmentation 
could become reality much sooner than any one would wish.

Best

Paul



>
> James
>
> On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:07, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google 
> <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com <mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Wow.
>>
>> Very enlightening indeed Paul. Thank you.
>>
>> ------
>> Rgds,
>>
>> Tracy
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2014 4:33 AM, "Paul M Kane" <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk 
>> <mailto:Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>     The ccNSO is a valuable forum for those ccTLDs that wish to
>>     discuss issues and (potentially) be accountable to ICANN and its
>>     processes/determinations.
>>
>>     There are many ccTLDs that have never been to a ccNSO meeting,
>>     know little about ICANN and are accountable to their users under
>>     the laws of the jurisdiction in which the ccTLD Registry is
>>     incorporated and/or the legal jurisdiction of the user contracts
>>     with the ccTLD Registry.
>>
>>     Unlike gTLDs which specifically obtain their authority to be in
>>     the IANA ROOT by virtue of a contract with ICANN, the ccTLD
>>     Registry falls into (at least) two categories.  There are ccTLDs
>>     that have agreements with ICANN  and those that do not.
>>
>>     To be specific, 7 have a MoU with ICANN, 9 have a "Sponsorship
>>     Agreement" with ICANN, 27 have an "Accountability Agreement" with
>>     ICANN, 42 have an "Exchange of Letters" with ICANN and 170 ccTLDs
>>     do not cede authority to ICANN.
>>
>>     Best
>>
>>     Paul
>>
>>