[kictanet] [isoc_ke] The .ug debate: Is Re-delegation Necessary? Comparison with .ke

[McTim]

Adam,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Adam Nelson via kictanet
<kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> I think we're getting confused between 'ownership' and 'management' and
> 'oversight'.  The dot KE and dot UG tlds will always be owned by the
> governments of Kenya and Uganda respectively.


Completely untrue.  No one "owns" a TLD.  Instead they are mnanaged by
"Trustees" or "Stewards".  These stewards could be a MS entity, a
government or a commercial entity.

While governments claim sovereignty over their ccTLD, in practice it
is often the case that governments can enforce this claim.

  It would be almost impossible
> for the governments to dispose of their ownership of the tlds and even if
> they did, ICANN would surely allow the government to take them back.


The IANA has very specific redelegation rules and processes.  The GoU
hasn't wanted to use them because this would be an admission that they
aren't sovereign over .ug.   I went over this with them a decade ago,
it appears they still don't understand how the process works.

>
> 'Management' can be delegated to a private entity and this is what the
> discussion is really about.  However, the 'management' is simply under the
> jurisdiction of the contract given to the manager which would be under
> Kenyan law in Kenya and Ugandan law in Uganda.

True for Kenya because GoK passed certain laws and regulations
regarding management of the TLD.
Untrue for UG. Even if UG passed a law, the .ug ccTLD could go
overseas and the GoU would be powerless to stop it.

  It's really not much
> different than the GoK giving a contract to a private company to run a
> parking lot next to the parliament building.  GoK can be sued within Kenyan
> courts for violating the contract but it's still under Kenyan law.
>
> 'Oversight' is the tricky issue of how the government intermediates its
> ownership with its desire for stewardship via good management of the
> resource that is beneficial to the country.  This is where the board becomes
> critical and we must be concerned about its makeup.  The goal of having a
> board is to get parliament and the executive branch farther away from an
> oversight role because they all know that this resource could really get
> devalued (which it already has).
>
> I remain confident that smart minds will prevail and we'll get a
> multistakeholder governance model for the 'oversight' role in Kenya - and
> hopefully in Uganda too.

We had the ideal MS governance model in KE already, but the then CCK
and GoK mucked it up.

Th UG situation could move to a MS oversight model, but that may
require redelegation, which isn't likely to happen.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel