Since 1985, non-state actors under Jon Postel’s leadership have experimented creating virtual national spaces on the Internet through so-called “country code top level domain names” (ccTLDs). There are 251 ccTLDs on the Internet. In 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the newly established coordination body for Internet addresses including ccTLDs – stressed out the principle of private sector leadership instead of public sector administration of Internet identifiers. ICANN’s coordination of ccTLDs required state actors to comply with the principle of private sector leadership in a top-down manner.As of 2009, the question of how to govern ccTLDs is still disputed at the national level between state actors and non-state actors, with state actors starting to reassert their power over ccTLDs, ignoring the principle of private sector leadership recommended by ICANN. This study presents five different national ccTLDs dispute cases, to investigate why national ccTLDs disputes have increased after the establishment of ICANN and how are state actors trying to regain control over ccTLDs.To download and read this article by Y. J. Park in the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, see:
The Chair of the ccNSO’s working group on delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDâs is pleased to announce the publication of the working groups Issue Analysis report [PDF, 1.16 MB]. The objective of the report is to inform and solicit input and comment from the community on the classification methodology developed by the working group and the issues identified and classified using that methodology, in particular on the following topics:
- Is the methodology developed and employed adequate for the purposes of the DRDWG?
- Do the policy statements identified provide an adequate baseline to evaluate the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to delegation, redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
- Are there other policy statements which are applicable to the work of the DRDWG? Should they be included in the baseline?
- Does the documentation identified provide an adequate representation of the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to delegation, redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
- Should other cases be included for analyses?
- Is there other documentation which is applicable to the work of the DRDWG which should be analyzed?
- Was the methodology properly applied to the cases?
To be most helpful you are kindly requested to submit your comments by 15 September 2010 at: icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201009-en.htm#drd. An archive of all comments received will be publicly available.
Background and next steps:
According to its charter the purpose of the delegation, redelegation and retirement Working Group (DRDWG) is to advise the ccNSO Council whether it should launch a policy development process to recommend changes to the current policies for delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs. The working group has published its first progress report in February 2010 and second progress report in June 2010. Both the charter and the progress reports can be found at here.
The Working Group will continue its work during this consultation period. After closure of the comment period, the working group will finalise this paper taking into account the public comments and input.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
The Chair of the ccNSO’s Internationalised Domain Name Country Code Policy Development Process Working Group (IDN ccPDP WG) for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs is pleased to announce the publication of the Chairs draft Interim Paper [PDF, 170 KB]. The purpose of this paper is to report to the community on structure and potential directions of the recommendations for the overall policy. To be most helpful at this stage of the process the WG seeks your input and comments on the following:
Is the proposed overall approach adequate? If not, what alternative do you propose?
Should process steps be added or excluded?
Should criteria be included, or excluded?
Should the criteria be changed?
This document has not been signed-off by the Working Group whose members will continue to provide their own comments and input during this consultation period.
The working group would welcome if comments and input on this report are submitted by 2 April 2010 via email to email@example.com. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at forum.icann.org/lists/idn-ccpdp/.
The IDN ccPDP WG was chartered by the ccNSO Council as part of the ccNSO policy development process to a ccNSO policy development process to recommend to the ICANN Board:
- A policy on the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs and,
- Changes to Article IX of the iCANN Bylaws to include IDN ccTLDâs in the ccNSO.
According to its charter, the purpose and scope of the IDN ccPDP WG is limited to identifying and reporting on a feasible policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. In fulfilling its purpose, the WG shall focus on, without limitation, examination of the topics raised in the joint GAC-ccNSO Issues paper. It shall also take into account the proposals and recommendations of the IDNC (Fast Track) Working Group and the Implementation Plan based on the work of the IDNC WG.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from: