vertical separation of registries and registrars

[YJ Park]

Hi Fouad,

The struggle of ccTLDs in the developing world has been my research
interests.
Some of their stories are available in the following article.
http://ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_10-13-2009.pdf

It willl be great to talk to you more on this offline.

Sincerely,
YJ
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Distress with ICANN ccTLD Contracts for developing world regions:
>
> There is also another important issue that is dividing the
> stakeholders in developing world countries. For example, in the case
> of the ccTLD Manager in Pakistan for .pk is causing a lot of
> discussion and dispute amongst the local industry between stakeholders
> with claims regarding the mismanagement of the ccTLD. I have been
> recording all the activities of the ccTLD since early this year.
>
> One root cause of this problem arises from the fact that ICANN does
> not have a clear transparency model for the management of ccTLDs,
> secondly, it has many agreements with ccTLD managers that it received
> under its take over of IANA. If you look at the ccTLD map on the ICANN
> website, you will see it only highlights the agreements it did itself
> and not those done under contract by IANA. This is leaving the
> stakeholders in a country like Pakistan distressed and confused.
>
> Issues at hand:
> These issues have emerged over and over on the Telecom Grid of
> Pakistan and Pakistan ICT Policy Network mailing lists sometimes
> resulting in heavy flamewars between the debators and defendents. Only
> last year in June 2008, PKNIC faced its worse downtime spanned over 7
> days during which its 28000 plus domain names were on a total halt
> inflicting heavy financial and intellectual property loss to the
> domain owners and client organizations. All three key stakeholders of
> Pakistan's E-Governance Infrastructure including the Government of
> Pakistan, the Private Sectors including the Business Commerce and
> Industry as well as Civil Society were amongst the effectees. Despite
> this PKNIC walked away clean.
>
> What to do:
> ICANN must be encouraged to revise its ccTLD management contracts,
> review its registrar and registration policies for ccTLDs and create
> space for Public Participation or atleast the stakeholders of the
> ccTLD manager's region so that these ccTLDs may be scrutinized and
> become transparent to stakeholders.
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > An important policy issue that is bitterly dividing the industry along
> somewhat difficult to predict lines is whether registrars and registries
> should become more integrated. ICANN has sponsored two economic studies.
> One, by Charles Rivers Associates International (CRAI) proposes a very
> moderate relaxation of this requirement. Another, by an economist named
> Carleton, proposes getting rid of it altogether, and this is the position
> than seems to be favored by ICANN staff.
> >
> > Afilias and PIR have come out strongly opposed to the proposed policy.
> You can bone up on some of the issues by looking at the web site they
> prepared: http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/blog
> >
> > Ideally we should develop a position statement on this
> >
> > Milton Mueller
> > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> > ------------------------------
> > Internet Governance Project:
> > http://internetgovernance.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> @skBajwa
> Answering all your technology questions
> http://www.askbajwa.com
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090709/4c923135/attachment.html>