RE: [gtld-council] Regarding scope for recommendation 20

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,

I don't think we are talking about self-appointed authority but rather
authority based on contractual agreements between ICANN and registration
service providers.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 3:23 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding scope for recommendation 20
> 
> Thanks, Bruce.   But my question remains unanswered.
> 
> Self-appointed authority is not the same thing as legitimate 
> authority.
> 
> My organization can write bylaws claiming it has the right to 
> legislate matters. 
> 
> My organization's staff can claim we have the right to 
> legislate matters, but that does not make it real authority. 
>  
> Self-proclamations of power over others are not legitimate authority.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> 
> > 
> >Hello Robin,
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Where in ICANN's mandate is it authorized to regulate in areas that 
> >>are not tied to technical or legal requirements?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Yes - this is a good question.  I note that transfers policy is not a
> >legal requirement or technical requirement either, but it 
> was considered
> >desirable for consumer choice and consumer protection to create a
> >transfers policy.
> >
> >In the recent staff issues report on domain name tasting at:
> >http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-t
> asting-repo
> >rt-14jun07.pdf
> >
> >The staff justified describing the topic of domain name tasting as in
> >scope on the basis that:
> >
> >(1) "Domain tasting activities involve the allocation and 
> assignment of
> >domain names."
> >
> >And
> >
> >(2) "ICANN is also responsible for policy development reasonably and
> >appropriately related to these technical functions"
> >
> >So I would assume that recommendation 20 would be in-scope for
> >consideration on the same basis - but we could seek confirmation from
> >the General Counsel.
> >
> >
> >There is also a precedent in the procedures for allocating a 
> ccTLD from
> >the ISO-3166-1 list.
> >From: http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm 
> >
> >"The desires of the government of a country with regard to 
> delegation of
> >a ccTLD are taken very seriously. 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."
> >
> >The IANA procedures in turn was derived from RFC1591
> >(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt) dated March 1994, which
> >states:
> >
> >"Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that
> >the designated manager is the appropriate party.
> >
> >The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement
> >among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things
> >unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the
> >designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the 
> IANA step in.
> >
> >However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have
> >some voice in selecting the designated manager."
> >
> >
> >
> >The new gTLD committee could decide to use similar language.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>