Who's in charge?
For many ccTLD operators, such as those in Europe, this is not a major issue. They are either governed by local laws or have developed other relationships with their governments. Several European operators say ICANN should not involve itself in these matters, because they see it as a sovereignty issue and express concern about the US government maintaining too much influence over ICANN.
"There are perhaps some other ccTLDs that might see ICANN as having a role in defending the registry against an undemocratic government," says Nigel Roberts, operations manager for the domains of the Channel Islands, off the coast of Britain. "But ccTLDs like dot-uk and ourselves say that the whole top-heavy policy-making structure that ICANN has evolved into . . . is just not appropriate to deal with the ccTLDs, as ccTLDs are run in accordance with local culture and local customs."
But a fear exists--particularly in smaller countries or areas where the government previously has not been involved in the ccTLD--that businesses could be subject to the whims of a government that may unfairly redelegate control of the country-code domain to someone else.
"Governments should be viewed as part of the local Internet community, not as [the] ultimate authority over it," says Garth Miller, who chairs the policy panel at Dot CX, operator of dot-cx, the top-level domain for Christmas Island, an Australian territory.
Dot CX has been seeking official recognition as the new operator dot-cx. Both the local government and the original operators agreed to transfer control of the domain name to Dot CX, but the company has had difficulty persuading ICANN to update the database of ccTLD administrators to reflect the change until the Australian government signs off.
ICANN's McLaughlin says the policy, even under Postel, has been to not make such a change until all the relevant parties have agreed.
Government representatives say it is their job to ensure that ccTLDs are run in the interest of the local community. Some have been pushing for a "trilateral agreement" that would specify not only what services ICANN would provide the ccTLDs, but also what responsibilities a ccTLD operator has to the local community as well as what role the government would play should a problem develop with the ccTLD manager. Many ccTLD managers say they need to first establish a "bilateral agreement" with ICANN before they consider involving a third party.
One of the reasons governments want a more formal relationship with the ccTLD operators is because "we have a problem of some ccTLD managers who don't work in the best interest of the ccTLD," says Michael Leibrandt, a German representative on ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.
Still, most people involved with the issue say that such "problem" managers are a distinct minority. After ICANN initially appeared to put itself in the middle of the debate over what governments' role should be in the process, ICANN officials now say they prefer to let the two parties work it out among themselves.
"Everyone's interest is legitimate," McLaughlin says. "The question is to find a way to balance it that doesn't give anyone decisive authority--including us."
Another issue that the ccTLD operators are trying to settle concerns ICANN's call for the ccTLDs to help fund its operations.
In its budget ending June 30, 2001, ICANN asked the ccTLDs to contribute a total of US$1.49 million, though it has collected less than US$1 million so far. ICANN irked many of the ccTLDs last year when it sent out invoices detailing how much each ccTLD owed. The fees depended on the number of domain names registered in a ccTLD. For example, the dot-uk registry, one of the largest, was expected to contribute US$249,715. By contrast, the tab for the little-used dot-us domain--which VeriSign administers as a service to the US government--totaled just US$3,339.
Many ccTLD operators say they are willing to support ICANN, but only after they determine what services they will receive from ICANN. These services, ICANN says, include such tasks as adding name server changes to the Net's root server system and providing technical assistance.
Some ccTLD operators, particularly those in Europe, have opposed proposals to base funding on the number of domain names, describing it as a "domain name tax."
"The bigger countries will pay for more, but let us decide," says William Black, managing director at Nominet UK, which manages the country code for the UK.
ICANN officials have suggested a different formula, such as one that would place all domain name operators into different tiers, with the smallest ccTLDs paying very little and the largest paying the most.
But if they are going to chip in to ICANN's budget, some country-code managers say, they should have a greater voice in how ICANN operates. Some have called for the creation of a ccTLD support organisation that would have representatives sitting on ICANN's board.
"The [ccTLDs] are supposed to contribute one-third of the [ICANN] budget," says Antony Van Couvering, president of the International Association of Top Level Domains, an association that represents the interests of some ccTLDs. But, he asks, "What are we paying for? We don't get any board seats. No one pays any attention to us."
