27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 114:
Line 114: + + + +
→Paper 6: ccTLDs
====Paper 6: ccTLDs====
====Paper 6: ccTLDs====
The final EC paper criticizes the degree to which ICANN is involved, and makes demands of, the running of national [[ccTLD]] registries. While they do point to some long-standing contentions between ccTLD registries and ICANN, [[Nigel Roberts]] has pointed out that the EC is overstepping its authority as it is issuing a paper regarding what seems to be a concern of the Union's member states and not a shared, exclusive, or supporting competences of the Union. Thus, this paper has been generally received as the document most inappropriate and ill-informed of the EC's 6 non-official papers.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' blog post, nigel.je]</ref> It has further been posited by [[Milton Mueller]] that given that the [[DNS]] is a shared, global resource, standard notions of national sovereignty are not always applicable or possible to implement.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/21/4904077.html IGP Blogpost, ccTLD paper]</ref>
The final EC paper criticizes the degree to which ICANN is involved, and makes demands of, the running of national [[ccTLD]] registries. While they do point to some long-standing contentions between ccTLD registries and ICANN, [[Nigel Roberts]] has pointed out that the EC is overstepping its authority as it is issuing a paper regarding what seems to be a concern of the Union's member states and not a shared, exclusive, or supporting competences of the Union. Thus, this paper has been generally received as the document most inappropriate and ill-informed of the EC's 6 non-official papers.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' blog post, nigel.je]</ref> It has further been posited by [[Milton Mueller]] that given that the [[DNS]] is a shared, global resource, standard notions of national sovereignty are not always applicable or possible to implement.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/21/4904077.html IGP Blogpost, ccTLD paper]</ref>
The EC does correctly note that there have been a number of impediments and problems related to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLD operations. One of its issues is that ICANN requires a statement from the original registry that it is aware and in approval of the relegation of its ccTLD concern. However, to change this bylaw would likely violate law pertinent to ICANN as an incorporated organization in California, and create legal problems for the organization. The EC also has problems with the implementation and delegation of [[IDN]]] [[ccTLD]]s, which has been a long-standing issue.
The EC further complains of "unexplained delays in updating [[Root Zone|root zone]] information", which is a complaint that ccTLD operators have made. In 1997, it took a little over an hour to see updates take place, and since then the delays have become exceedingly long and are not readily explained by ICANN.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' blog post, nigel.je]</ref>
The sixth EC paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/EC5-ccTLDs1.pdf here].
The sixth EC paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/EC5-ccTLDs1.pdf here].