[ncdnhc-discuss] Who will run .us?
Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at mail.msen.com
Thu Oct 25 04:30:02 CEST 2001
Chun Eung Hwi --
The "IANA Report on Request for Redelegation of the .ca Top-Level
Domain" (which you reference) indicated that redelegation to CIRA should
follow upon the conclusion of a CIRA-ICANN agreement. In fact, though,
the redelegation took place effective December 1, 2000, and so far as I
know no contract has ever been signed. I believe the contract language is
still a matter of negotiation between ICANN and CIRA.
Jon
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> Dear Jonathan Weinberg,
>
> I heard that .ca has been negotiated for contract with ICANN.
> (refer to http://www.iana.org/reports/ca-report-01dec00.htm)
> And you can find out the contact point of .ca here -
> http://www.wwtld.org/member_list/countrycodesort0917.php
>
>
> 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, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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