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

Mon Oct 27 15:17:24 UTC 2014

Whoa!  There are an awful lot of sweeping statements here that fly in the
face of the one clearly true statement that there is enormous diversity
among ccTLD models.

In particular, the distinction between ³legacy² ccTLDs and ³contracted²
ccTLDs does not reflect my understanding of history.  In the early days of
ICANN there was a significant push (including by me) for ccTLDs to
recognize ICANN¹s authority (as the IANA Administrator) to intervene in
the event that a ccTLD was threatening the security and stability of the
DNS and/or Internet.  Some early ICANN enthusiasts - for a host of VERY
DIFFERENT reasons - caused their ccTLD to enter into contracts with ICANN.
 The whole concept quickly fell apart when it became clear that most ccTLD
managers were not interested and, in particular, when the US government
refused to do so.  As a result, there are a very small number of ccTLDs
with full blown contracts with ICANN.  And to say that they have
surrendered sovereignty to ICANN is extraordinary hyperbole.  I am sure
that the operators of .CA, .JP, and .AU - as well as the respective
governments of the associated countries - would vehemently disagree.

Since that time a number of ccTLD operators - again for a host of VERY
DIFFERENT reasons - have ³exchanged letters² or entered into
³accountability frameworks² with ICANN.  These vary as well, some involve
³mutual recognition² and some involve much less than that.  The exchange
of letters with Luxembourg is illustrative.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lu-icann-letters-22feb11-en.pdf
.  It says that .LU will be operated ³at the local level and in close
cooperation with the local Internet community and in compliance with
Luxembourg law.²  The manager then acknowledges its responsibility not to
mess up the stability and security of the DNS.  The exchange of letters
with the Solomon Islands likewise commits the operator to operate its name
servers in a stable and secure manner ³within the limits of national law
and national public policy.²
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sb-icann-letters-30oct07-en.pdf

As someone who spends a significant amount of time with the ccTLD
community, I can assure you that ccTLD operators have not ³lost their
ability for self-accountability.²  Acknowledging the FACT that ICANN
performs IANA services simply does not amount to ³ceding authority² to
ICANN.  

Second, to my knowledge, IANA was NEVER ³automated.²  It¹s possible that
until 1998 you could simply enter the IP address of a new name server on
the IANA website, which IANA then passed on to Network Solutions/Verisign
to implement, and it felt ³automatic² - but I¹m pretty certain that this
was a very manual process.  In 1998 the US government used its contract
with Network Solutions/Verisign to prohibit Verisign to unilaterally make
changes to the root.  If you were part of this in 1998, it isn¹t hard to
understand why - we were concerned that Verisign would use its access to
thwart the emerging consensus around bottom-up, private sector led,
representative and diverse management of the domain name system.

The fact is that the vast majority of ccTLD operators participate in the
ccNSO and/or regional organizations.  Even so, it is entirely possible for
those who prefer not to do so to make their voices heard on both policy
and technical issues associated with IANA.  I have a great deal of respect
for Paul Kane, but the suggestion that participating involves a surrender
of sovereignty is way over the top IMHO.

Finally, many many ccTLD operators depend on cost-free IANA services. I
agree with Christopher about the importance of maintaining that situation.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

On 10/26/14, 5:15 AM, "Paul M Kane" <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk> wrote:

><html>
>(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 ccTLD¹s, 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 ccTLD¹s 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 don¹t 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
>>>
>>>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=eRnboa-kbxoW0zhRP3OArR1F_tDpHxtsRWwqbya
>zRFY&s=s-7zZ3h6f8cz9l-4qFa8qxGhYGwiMSsljsYas-CDBEs&e= 