nettime's_roving_reporter on Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:42:44 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> 'IANA' to revoke .su ccTLD? |
[via <[email protected]>] <http://icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=984&mode=thread&order=0> [68]Country-Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) Is .su Doomed? (And - ha! - will there be any public debate?) Posted by [69]michael on Sunday, October 20 @ 14:23:11 MDT Contributed by [70]michael Wired News carries a fascinating [71]story stating that ICANN ccTLD liason [72]Herbert Vitzthum "announced at the Moscow conference in late September that dot-su would be revoked". The story raises two issues: First, what should happen to orphan ccTLDs if the country they are associated with ceases to exist -- but the registrations remain? Second -- as we've often asked [73]before -- how is it that these decisions that ICANN takes while wearing its "IANA" hat happen without any public discussion, or even notice? As Alexander Svensson noted on the ICANN GA list, .su is "no longer on the ISO 3166-1 list ([74]http://shorl.com/bustypugyleju), but it's on the list of "reserved code elements" since September 1992. ([75]http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/iso3166-res.pdf - 632 kB)". There isn't an RFC, or even a ICP on what to do about orphan ISO codes when a country vanishes. If, as [76]RFC 920 and [77]RFC 1591 state, the rule for ccTLD creation is "reflect the ISO list", and the ISO list shirks, that certainly could be read to suggest that the ccTLD should go too. Certainly, that's what [78]ICANN has done when a country changes its name. But there's an arguably even more fundamental principle that could be brought to bear: you might call it, [79]the internet is for everyone, or the idea that stability is a key internet virtue, or the idea that whatever ICANN does, it shouldn't make it harder for people to use the Internet to communicate. From each of these perspectives, the .su domain should stay -- or at least the 28,000 existing second-level registrants in .su ought to be able to keep their names (new registrations are frozen, Wired reports). Interesting as these issues are, there's no need for ICANNWatch readers or anyone else to worry about them. You see, it appears that ICANN is going to decide this intersting question in the usual way: in secret, with no public notice or consultation. Indeed, it appears that to date the ICANN staff member who's going to make this decision affecting many thousands of people (there are a substantial number of third-level registrants in the .su domain, and of course all the people with .su bookmarks, and all the e-mail users with .su addresses) [80]hasn't even bothered to raise the question with the ICANN Board, much less any supporting organization or the public. Business as usual -- and it will only get worse and more secretive after the upcoming abolish-elections-and-any-pretense-of-democracy "reform"... Related Links [81]More about Country-Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) References 68. http://icannwatch.org/search.php?topic=9 69. http://www.law.tm/ 70. http://icannwatch.org/user.php?op=userinfo&uname=michael 71. http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,55687,00.html 72. http://www.icann.org/biog/vitzthum.htm 73. http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=336 74. http://shorl.com/bustypugyleju 75. http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/iso3166-res.pdf 76. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0920.txt 77. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt 78. http://www.iana.org/reports/zr-report-20jun01.htm 79. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3271.txt 80. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc11/msg01516.html 81. http://icannwatch.org/search.php?topic=9 # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]