Comment on: ccNSO Working Group Paper on Delegation, Redelegation and Retirement of ccTLDs

[Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@xxxxxxxxx>]

To whom it may concern:

 This is my feedback regarding the work done by the DRDWG and published for
comments.

 Q1: Is the methodology developed and employed adequate for the purposes of
the

DRDWG?

Feedback1: It seems to be adequate but convoluted.


 Q2: Do the policy statements identified provide an adequate baseline to
evaluate the

actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to delegation,

re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs?

Feedback2: Yes, however if IANA is directed by its own set of by-laws
similar to what ICANN has, they should have been included as part of the the
analysis.


 Q3: Are there other policy statements which are applicable to the work of
the

DRDWG? Should they be included in the baseline?

Feedback3: Same as comment in Q2.


 Q4: 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?

Q5:Should other cases be included for analyses?

Q6: Is there other documentation which is applicable to the work of the
DRDWG

which should be analyzed?

Feedback4/5/6: I would like to bring to the DRDWG attention the case of the
ccTLD .pr. This ccTLD was redelegated by IANA in 2007 from University of
Puerto Rico (who was the Sponsoring Organization at that time) to Gauss
Research Laboratory, Inc (a new for-profit Sponsoring Organization) without
the consent of the University of Puerto Rico. In this case, IANA made the
redelegation without informing ICANN Board for they said (IANA) that it was
made to and quote: “...reflect a structural reorganization...”. The DRDWG
should analyze: Was the action taken based on current policy?, Is a
full-redelegation vs. an administrative one clearly defined?, Should there
be policies in place to prevent making decisions based on a possible policy
interpretation and/or when appropriate due diligence is not performed?

 More recently, we received the following words from Kim Davies clarifying
some aspects of the 2007 .pr redelegation:

 “With respect to the administrative change of the Sponsoring Organisation
of .PR in 2007, such change
met the criteria for such a change at that time. As it is a requirement that
the Sponsoring Organisation
does not object to such a change, ICANN was satisfied that the University of
Puerto Rico did not
disapprove of that change at that time. Other than that, it is ICANN's
practice to keep working dialogue
between the parties in executing root zone changes in confidence. You should
contact the University or
Gauss if you wish them to disclose documentation concerning that request.

Kim Davies
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:34 PM”

 I have included the letter from the University of Puerto Rico stating that
they did not authorized the redelegation and an email communication from
David Conrad explaining why IANA allowed the re-delegation without any
announcement or ICAN's board approval.

 Q7:Was the methodology properly applied to the cases?

Feedback7: Yes, however in a couple of instances, for example 2.4.4 where it
says in the last sentence : “This is of interest to the DRDWG. ” there
should be a definition or clarification as to what this statement means.

 Overall I believe that the DRDWG has done an excellent and important job
here.


 Eduardo Diaz

ISOC-PR










-- 
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.