Additional thoughts on TRANSITIONAL
Erik van der Poel
erikv at google.com
Fri Dec 4 16:56:33 CET 2009
Ah, in that case, please ignore that part of my email and focus on the
rest of the proposal. Thanks.
>> We encourage ICANN to redelegate TLDs the registries of which flout our
> How is that supposed to happen?
> The redelegation of a ccTLD can only be initiated at the request of the
> corresponding national government, and in any situation where that assertion
> might prove incorrect, the redelegation would require that government's
> approval. This is a matter of national sovereignty and it is nonsensical to
> expect ICANN even to contemplate overriding it at the urging of the IETF.
> And, again, if that is an incorrect statement, governments will have no
> difficulty in ensuring that their sovereignty prevails.
> The delegation of gTLDs is regulated by contract to ICANN and adherence to
> relevant RFCs is already boilerplate. I can't imagine how noncompliance in
> that regard could lead to redelegation without massive litigation, but as
> long as the IETF is prepared to indemnify ICANN I suppose we could put the
> idea forward. This assumes that the rules are all clearly articulated in
> protocol. If you are envisioning some other IETF instrument that might be
> invoked with binding effect in a contract, I'd be interested to hear the
> details. (Rules articulated externally to the contract wouldn't be worth
More information about the Idna-update