RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
- To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:31:27 +1000
> Interesting question Bruce. I will not try to answer for
> Avri but here
> is my response. With the exception of where contention is involved, I
> have never envisioned the objection process as a dispute mediation
> process, so I guess I see it more as a yes/no approach. I am
> of course
> curious as to what others think.
RFC1591 does provide some guidance here:
From: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt under section 3. The
Administration of Delegated Domains:
"The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both
the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet
"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
However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have
some voice in selecting the designated manager.
There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may
establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of
it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the
applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole
country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a
country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a
country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service.
The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by
will act as a review panel for cases in
which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The
IDNB's decisions will be binding."