Twomey talking about redelegation of ccTLDs. He emphasizes the importance of having documentation that supports a redelegation request. Notes that redelegation is not just a local issue, but might also affect global interoperability. Emphasizes the need for being extremely conservative with regard to redelegation; characterizes US DoC involvement as fail-safe mechanism, not actual exercise of influence over substance of redelegation decisions.
Biggest problem: Local disputes. Not ICANN's job to solve these problems. Twomey walks through redelegation requests that needed extremely long, explains what happened.
Follow GAC principles. No role on internal rules of ccTLD or country policy. Important for national administrations to approach with one voice and to determine who should have responsibility ccTLD administration. Problematic when different agencies send diverging requests. Impact on existing registrants -- ICANN does not have database of existing registrations. Some other entity has. Must be solved locally.
List of completed redelegations. Examples of outstanding requests. Planned improvement: Workflow system; automate minor changes to ccTLD whois information and root zone.
Issues: Risk and threat model. May need different interfaces for different "customers." People interface for some ccTLD, electronic interface for others.
UK: IANA function as monopoly. How control that function, avoid influence from other activities within organization. Normal procedure -- have regulator, have separation of functions. Historically, DoC in regulator role. Moving towards more international framework. Need ensure separation visible not just to current contract holder, but seen by everybody. Question: How is ICANN managing the realtionship between monopoly function and other activities which can be influenced by or could influence monopoly function.
Twomey: Moving to public reporting of performance. Discussion with DoC. Shared resources between IANA function and other activities, helps keep cost down; think legal advice. Key point about more transparent process. ... Occasionally, confidentiality requirements, up to people safety. Cerf: Information on specific request might not be available for public, but statistical information will be.
UK: Helpful. See and understand practical difficulties with separation. Nevertheless, important thing is that monopoly function can be shown not to be influenced by any other activities, and that monopoly function is not used and not seen to be used to influence any of the other activities. Contractual basis needed? Difficulty when that is tied to things that are wider than particular function. Wider policy question. Twomey: History of heavy-handedness. But: Doesn't get ICANN out of issue of accountability framework. ...
Nigeria: ITU, WSIS, hard to understand.
