3 ms·

> Tuvalu uses that domain as a significant source of income (Tuvalu is really really small) it is quite likely those domains are legally bought Whilst true, it

by vaduz 6y ago

> Tuvalu uses that domain as a significant source of income (Tuvalu is really really small) it is quite likely those domains are legally bought Whilst true, it depends on a circular argument that the domain name registrant has a significant business presence in Tuvalu by virtue of paying for the domain, thus being entitled to a regional registration in the country in the first place (you could substitute Tuvalu by Tokelau and a bunch of others which make selling the domain to non-local entities, see it nicely visualized here [0]). It used to really raise some hackles at ICANN and InterNic back in the day, but nowadays, after the gTLD floodgates have been opened - no one really cares anymore about the old regional rules. [0] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/17152048/Online-World-Map-2018.pdf?dm_i=4CYI,G2NI,3G6TD9,1U2V6,1 https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/u...

afiori 6y ago
I always thought that those rules were at the discretion of the domain administrators. Are they actually externally imposed from ICANN or something else? I know that my country (at least nominally) requires that its TDL is only used by citizens, residents or bussiness with "significant presence"; but that should be a choice each country makes.
- krageon 6y ago
  It is not the case for most country-specific TLD's that you need to have a significant presence in those countries to get such a TLD. If anything, that is the exception.
- vaduz 6y ago
  That's current view on things, which has shifted quite a bit over the decades. Pre-ICANN, back in in 1994 when Postel wrote RFC 1591 [0], there were only 5 domains used for global use (.com, .net, .org, .edu, .int), two special US-only domains (.gov, .mil) and the rest were ccTLDs. InterNic has been the primary registry these days, and it also operated the gTLDs of .com, .net, .edu directly, so it had commercial interest for the country-code delegations to stay local - this perceived conflict was one of the reasons why ICANN was eventually formed to take over the general oversight, and the first topic it had to tackle - before even being properly funded! - was the emergence of some countries that did sell their ccTLDs to other parties, especially as WIPO had some words to say in 'concern' over the bidding war around .tv and insisted that ccTLDs that operate as "open" should apply the same global rules as gTLDs [1] and some purchasers in the simlar sales proved "not to have local community support" and/or "not operated [ccTLD] in public interest" [2] Even after the ICANN was formed, in the transition period the some of the MOU documents ccTLD registrar sent to ICANN used to contain a phrase which was clearly copied from an earlier era (phrase bears a little differences in spelling, but always using something like "meet the needs of the Local Internet Community"): [ccTLD manager] supports the concept of industry self regulation in the internet and therefore is also supportive of ICANN as the organization that performs the IANA function and consequently assures that this concept can work for benefit of all Internet stakeholders. At the same time to preserve this concept we believe that the policy and structure of the [ccTLD], *as any ccTLD, should be operated at a local level, to meet the needs of the Local Internet Community* within the framework of the relevant local laws. Check out e.g. UK exchange of letters from 2006 [3] for an example. That being said - all of the above is only a bit of historical interest, as by now it is accepted that it is ok to operate ccTLD which accepts registrations from anywhere should your country wish it, as long as global rules are adhered to (to prevent stuff like "cocacola.cx") and there has been some clarification on the policies to make custom gTLDs a possibility. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [1] https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/report/finalreport.html#188 https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/report/finalr... [2] https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concerning-cctlds-16dec01.htm https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concernin... [3] https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/uk/nominet-icann-letters-02may06-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/uk/nominet-...

by vaduz 6y ago

afiori 6y ago

I always thought that those rules were at the discretion of the domain administrators. Are they actually externally imposed from ICANN or something else? I know that my country (at least nominally) requires that its TDL is only used by citizens, residents or bussiness with "significant presence"; but that should be a choice each country makes.

krageon 6y ago
It is not the case for most country-specific TLD's that you need to have a significant presence in those countries to get such a TLD. If anything, that is the exception.
vaduz 6y ago
That's current view on things, which has shifted quite a bit over the decades. Pre-ICANN, back in in 1994 when Postel wrote RFC 1591 [0], there were only 5 domains used for global use (.com, .net, .org, .edu, .int), two special US-only domains (.gov, .mil) and the rest were ccTLDs. InterNic has been the primary registry these days, and it also operated the gTLDs of .com, .net, .edu directly, so it had commercial interest for the country-code delegations to stay local - this perceived conflict was one of the reasons why ICANN was eventually formed to take over the general oversight, and the first topic it had to tackle - before even being properly funded! - was the emergence of some countries that did sell their ccTLDs to other parties, especially as WIPO had some words to say in 'concern' over the bidding war around .tv and insisted that ccTLDs that operate as "open" should apply the same global rules as gTLDs [1] and some purchasers in the simlar sales proved "not to have local community support" and/or "not operated [ccTLD] in public interest" [2] Even after the ICANN was formed, in the transition period the some of the MOU documents ccTLD registrar sent to ICANN used to contain a phrase which was clearly copied from an earlier era (phrase bears a little differences in spelling, but always using something like "meet the needs of the Local Internet Community"): [ccTLD manager] supports the concept of industry self regulation in the internet and therefore is also supportive of ICANN as the organization that performs the IANA function and consequently assures that this concept can work for benefit of all Internet stakeholders. At the same time to preserve this concept we believe that the policy and structure of the [ccTLD], *as any ccTLD, should be operated at a local level, to meet the needs of the Local Internet Community* within the framework of the relevant local laws. Check out e.g. UK exchange of letters from 2006 [3] for an example. That being said - all of the above is only a bit of historical interest, as by now it is accepted that it is ok to operate ccTLD which accepts registrations from anywhere should your country wish it, as long as global rules are adhered to (to prevent stuff like "cocacola.cx") and there has been some clarification on the policies to make custom gTLDs a possibility. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [1] https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/report/finalreport.html#188 https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/report/finalr... [2] https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concerning-cctlds-16dec01.htm https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concernin... [3] https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/uk/nominet-icann-letters-02may06-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/uk/nominet-...