RE: [ga] RE: is ICANN or is ICANN not?

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Elisabeth,

I am puzzled by your questions, because I believe that we would give the
same answers, but this whole discussion might make the rest of the audience
believe that we are on diametrally opposite positions. 

Anyway, let's try (it's my last post on the subject, except for possible
apologies if I said something inaccurate).

> Roberto, who gave ICANN a mandate for allocating or retiring 
> ccTLD names?
Please refer to http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-14aug06.pdf. Look
at clause C.2.2.1.2.

> Or to take action on .SU?
It is part of the ÏANA Root Management Requests", referenced above.
There is no hurry to take .su out of the root, except for the fact that at
one point in time SU could be reallocated by ISO-3166/MA (under current
rules, not earlier than some 40+ years, but it would be bad policy to depend
on rules established by others). If this happens, IANA might be asked to
process the delegation of .su, and it might be utterly inconvenient to have
.su. So it might be healthy to revocate the one deprecated by ISO-3166/MA

> Or just any other ccTLD for that matter?
Same story.

> Who autorised ICANN to make policy regarding ccTLDs?
Nobody. But since the ICANN Board has to approve the IANA recommendations to
put them into action, to obey the letter of the contract above, it seems to
be a fair thing to have a general policy, discussed with the community,
rather than take decisions on a case-by-case basis.

> Is that within IANA contract? 
"That" being the delegation/redelegation/revocation, yes.
"That" being the formulation of policy, no.

> 
> Best regards,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve

If anybody has different facts, please feel free to correct me.

Cheers,
Roberto