[ncdnhc-discuss] Who will run .us?
Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at mail.msen.com
Wed Oct 24 22:00:03 CEST 2001
The ICANN Board signed off on the .AU contract,
<http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm>, in
Montevideo. So far at least, it's the only ICANN-ccTLD contract to be
signed.
Jon
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Rob Courtney wrote:
> Chun,
> Excellent comments... regarding the possibilities if ".us" goes to a
> bidder who hasn't signed the MOU, I agree that we'll want to
> encourage the operator to negotiate some kind of good policy process.
> Does anyone know if ICANN will pursue contracts with the new ".au" operator?
>
> r
>
> At 2:43 AM +0900 10/25/01, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> >Dear Rob and others,
> >
> >First, I truly appreciate for all answers and comments regarding my
> >question. Throughout those replies, I could know and understand more
> >correctly what is happening regarding .us although still many questions
> >remain. My thinking is as follows;
> >
> >1. AFAIK, at the moment, the delegee of .us is definitely NSI if we refer
> >to the cctld whois information of IANA. At least, cctld constituency
> >members think so. (please refer to
> >http://www.wwtld.org/member_list/countrycodesort0917.php) If US Gov. argue
> >that it is the delegee, it could bring in very serious confusion and
> >strong challenges from other ccTLD managers.
> >
> >2. Harold Feld's thinking that there is no more IANA is quite far from the
> >fact. Frankly speaking, for me, IANA looks like a magic hand of something
> >invisible. As Michael Froomkin called it properly as mini-ICANN in his
> >very impressive article (http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/dotau.htm), it
> >abruptly appears up and makes some policy without any consultation with
> >ICANN. And also its independent entity is confirmed by its contract with
> >US Gov. (refer to http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-21mar01.htm,
> >even here, it was clarified that its policy development procedure should
> >abide by MoU of ICANN with DoC. Therefore, in the case of redelegation,
> >any ccTLD should abide by RFC 1591 and ICP-1) Paradoxically and as such,
> >now, in the redelegation case of .us, I think, we could look forward to
> >such magic power of IANA.
> >
> >3. Based on this speculation, I think, even when the bidder public
> >interest group had not made any MoU with was chosen for redelegation, that
> >group can argue the legitimate documented procedure for redelegation
> >including IANA's communication with other parties concerned or affected by
> >the redelegation, IANA report, public comment on that report and ICANN
> >board's authorization.
> >
> >4. One comment for the contract of ccTLD! I can understand that the
> >trilateral contract model could be appropriate in the case of .us because
> >since its initial stage, the role of US Gov. has been clearly remarkable.
> >Whereas, in most other countries, the role of governments for each ccTLD
> >has been almost nothing or if any, very weak. That's why many ccTLDs feel
> >uneasy for the trilateral arrangement proposal. And moreover as Michael
> >Froomkin pointed out it correctly, the involvement of government in ccTLD
> >comes up from GAC principles that has never been adopted as a policy in
> >ICANN.
> >
> >Due to these reasons, I think, the issue of .us is not simply an American
> >issue but its redelegation process has very significant implication even
> >to other ccTLDs.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Chun Eung Hwi
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >Chun Eung Hwi
> >General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2- 583-3033
> >Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
> >Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Rob Courtney wrote:
> >
> >> Chun,
> >>
> >> The notion for future redelegations (and AFAIK no redelegations have
> >> actually implemented this yet) is that trilateral contracts will be
> >> signed between ICANN/IANA, the ccTLD operator, and the relevant
> > > government. That's what we expect to happen. Discussion about who is the
> >> actual current delegee (USG or NSI/VeriSign) is interesting one but I
> >> will leave that to some of the lawyers on this list. Harold's description
> >> of the current situation matches my understanding, though. I don't
> > > believe USG currently has any relationship with IANA (contract or
> >> otherwise) regarding ".us", and its silence for the last 16 years has
> >> been taken as assent.
> >>
> >> As far as what CDT (and MAP, and other U.S. groups) have been doing: When
> >> the Department of Commerce issued its solicitation for a new .us
> >> operator, it did two important things:
> >>
> >> * It effectively guaranteed that the new .us operator would
> >> be a for-profit company (not an NGO or other public-interest
> >> organization)
> >>
> >>
> >> * It required that the operator undertake some significant
> >> policy responsibilities regarding the domain's
> >> operation--things like outreach to domain name holders,
> >> policies for expansion of the space, dispute resolution, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Speaking for CDT, we were disappointed by this approach. Many in the US
> >> user community wanted to make sure that policy-making in ".us" was fair
> >> and representative, and since that's oustide the core competencies of the
> >> companies that would be bidding on ".us", a coalition arose to put
> >> together a policy-making structure that would be open, transparent, and
> >> inclusive of broader stakeholder interests. The coalition includes CDT,
> >> the American Library Association, Media Access Project, and other
> >> stakeholder & business groups.
> >>
> >> The group signed a Memorandum of Understanding with three of the
> >> companies bidding for ".us" (Redwood Registries (a subsidiary of
> >> Register.com), Liberty RMS (a subsidiary of Tucows), and eNIC). The MOU
> >> states that if one of those companies wins the contract, they will work
> >> to help establish this new policy-making body and will begin using it to
> >> resolve policy questions.
> >>
> >> Now we are waiting to see which bidder the Department of Commerce will
> >> choose. When that choice is made, our coalition will have to hustle to
> >> bring the .usPDC (.us Policy Development Council) online as soon as we
> >> can.
> >>
> >> When the time comes to submit a redelegation request to ICANN/IANA, and
> >> assuming that the usPDC is operational and has a relationship with the
> >> registry operator, we hope that usPDC will be involved in that
> >> discussion. Ultimately, though, the contracts would be between the
> >> registry operator, ICANN/IANA, and USG.
> >>
> >> All this is a second-best solution; we would have preferred that the DOC
> >> mandate a better policy process for ".us". But the coalition is hopeful
> >> that it can work with the cards it has been dealt to improve stakeholder
> >> participation.
> >>
> >> r
> >>
> >> P.S. If you want some more details on this feel free to e-mail me
> >> off-list or check out:
> >> - The Memorandum of Understanding between usPDC and the bidders:
> >> http://www.cdt.org/dns/010727dotus-mou.shtml
> >> - Our coalition's statement of policy for ".us":
> >> http://www.cdt.org/dns/010727dotus-policy.shtml
> >> - The members of our coalition (part of a press release):
> >> http://www.cdt.org/press/010727press.shtml
> >>
> >>
> >> At 10:57 AM +0900 10/20/01, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Chris Chiu and others,
> >>
> >> I have some questions regarding the redelegation of .us.
> >>
> >> First, in my understanding, .us is also one ccTLD that is
> >> included in IANA
> >> database - http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm
> >> Therefore, it is very
> >> natural for the redelegation to abide by RFC1591 and ICP-1.
> >> For the
> >> redelegation of one specific ccTLD, we have very clear
> >> documented
> >> procedure.
> >>
> >> Second, according to that procedure, IANA should make a
> >> report for
> >> redelegation and get the authorization of ICANN board like
> >> all other
> >> redelegation cases up to now. Moreover, the operator of .us
> >> like all other
> >>
> >> ccTLD cases should make a formal contract with ICANN. Those
> > > contract
> >> drafts has already been posted on ICANN website for public
> >> comment.
> >>
> >> Third, I heard that CDT have tried to make an MoU with new
> >> operator
> >> together with other public interest groups. This activity
> >> could be
> >> justified as follwing statements of ICP-1.
> > >
> >> "(a) ... The IANA will make them a major consideration in any
> >> TLD
> >> delegation/transfer discussions. Significantly interested
> >> parties in the
> >> domain should agree that the proposed TLD manager is the
> >> appropriate
> >> party. ...
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> (e) ... It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive
> >> communications
> >> from other parties that may be concerned or affected by the
> >> transfer. In
> >> the event of a conflict over designation of a TLD manager,
> >> the IANA tries
> >> to have conflicting parties reach agreement among themselves
> >> and generally
> >> takes no action unless all contending parties agree. ..."
> >> (Excerpts from http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm)
> >>
> >> Then, still I have never look at IANA report for the
> >> redelegation of .us.
> >> And I want to know what CDT and other public interest groups
> >> would respond
> >> to the DoC's plan.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Chun Eung Hwi
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Chun Eung Hwi
> >> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2- 583-3033
> >> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
> >> Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail:
> >> ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Chris Chiu wrote:
> >>
> >> > The United States Commerce Department still plans to pick
> >> the future
> >>
> >> > operator of the .us country-code top-level domain by the
> >> end of October
> >>
> >> > 2001.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > See
> >>
> >> > http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights
> >> >
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Christopher Chiu
> >> > Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
> >> > American Civil Liberties Union
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Discuss mailing list
> >> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> >> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> >> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at icann-ncc.org http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss mailing list
> >Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> >http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at msen.com
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list