FMA Paper on the .PH Domain Administration

Final

STUDY PAPER ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE .PH ccTLD
FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA ALTERNATIVES

I.
Introduction

The Domain Name System ("DNS") is a hierarchical identification scheme designed to
ensure that each Internet address is globally unique and corresponds to a distinct numeric value.
The system resolves a domain name into a unique IP address, which points to a single location
on the Internet.1 The DNS is a single-rooted hierarchy of Internet domain names, the
classification of which is based on rules that have evolved over time. A top-level domain, or
TLD, is either a country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”), such as “.ph” for the Philippines, or
one of the generic (global) top-level domains (“gTLD”), such as “.com”.2

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (“IANA”), headed by Dr. Jon Postel,
implemented the DNS sometime in 1985. IANA was then responsible for the overall
coordination and management of the DNS, including the delegation of top-level domains and
ccTLDs.3 ccTLDs were established by the IANA to facilitate and promote the spread of the
Internet globally.4 Each ccTLD is identified using a two-character International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) identifier. That identifier is drawn from the ISO 3166-1 list, managed by
the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency and envisaged as politically neutral.5

ccTLDs are delegated to designated managers, who operate the ccTLDs according to
local policies that are adapted to best meet the economic, cultural and linguistic circumstances of
the country or territory involved. Starting in 1985, ccTLD managers received delegations to

1
Fisher, William; Kornfeld, Dori; and Oliar, Dotan. “Domain Names,” from Materials for the Internet Law
Program 2003.
2
Report of the NEDA Study Group.
3
Postel, Jon. RFC 1591, March 1994.
4
ICANN Montevideo Meeting Topic: Update on ccTLD Agreements,
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/cctld-update-topic.htm
5
Caslon Analytics profile: domain and the DNS http://www.caslon.com.au/domainsprofile2.htm.

FMA - .PH cc TLD Policy Study Paper 2

administer ccTLDs from IANA, or from Dr. Jon Postel as IANA's chief, based on informal
criteria. Generally, but not invariably, these managers were recognized as being an Internet
authority within the territory described by the ccTLD code, either because of technical expertise,
renown in the global Internet community, or because of standing within Internet community in
the relevant territory. While ccTLDs were first established as simple identifiers, rather than as
sovereign property of individual states, the thinking has changed, given the position adopted by
governments that ccTLDs should be exploited as a “strategic resource.”6

The administration of ccTLDs gains significance within the context of governance as it
affects the viability of web sites and email addresses. Administration of the domain registry
involves maintaining vital links to the Internet, which permit identification of websites as well as
directing email and other data to and from the proper addresses or computers on the Internet.

In the Philippines, PH Domain Foundation, Inc., presently administers the .PH ccTLD
under the control of Mr. Jose Emmanuel Disini, pursuant to an informal arrangement with Dr.
Postel. Soon after the establishment of an actual Philippine link to the Internet, efforts were
exerted to transfer the administration of the .PH ccTLD from Mr. Disini to a multi-stakeholder
body largely through negotiations refereed by Dr. Postel, subsequently leading to the delegation
of the administration of the sub-domains .edu.ph and .gov.ph to PHnet and to the Department of
Science and Technology (“DOST”), respectively. By 2004, Guidelines in the Administration of
the .ph Domain Name (the “Guidelines”) were promulgated by the Commission on Information
and Communications Technology.

This Study delves into the administration of the .PH ccTLD from 1989, when Mr. Disini
was informally delegated as manager, up to the issuance of the Guidelines in 2004, and raises
issues for consideration in the determination of the next steps in administration of the .PH
ccTLD, principally related to: (a) creation of the entity which may perform the functions of
registry and (b) strategies in relation to redelegation.

II.
Principles Related to the Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs

A. RFC 1591 and ICP-1
Traditionally, the implementation of policies governing the Internet has been informal. However,
as the use of the Internet spread throughout countries and its role as a major avenue for
communication and commerce became increasingly clear, the need for a formal set of policies
was underscored. As a result, Dr. Postel published RFC 1591 in March 1994, discussing the
DNS structure and guidelines for delegation. RFC 1591 laid out the criteria for the delegation of
a ccTLD to a manager, and on this basis, all further ccTLDs were delegated to their respective
managers. The issuance indicates the two basic principles of the delegation of any ccTLD from
IANA to its manager as: (i) the stability of the technical functioning of the delegated zone, and
(ii) service to the Internet community, both local and global.

6
Caslon Analytics profile: domain and DNS.

FMA_Study_Paper_ccTLD_v6__finaledit.doc printed: 12/4/12 Page 2 of 43


In the fall of 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
("ICANN") was incorporated as a private sector, non-profit corporation to assume responsibility
for the technical coordination of the DNS, including IANA’s functions. In February 2000,
ICANN entered into a contract with the Government of the United States for the operation by
ICANN of IANA.7 In May 1999, ICANN and IANA jointly issued a document entitled "Internet
Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (ccTLD Administration and Delegation)" or
"ICP-1." The release of ICP-1 was due, in part, to the need to harmonize the principles with the
practice of IANA. ICP-1 summarized the policies observed by the IANA in connection with
ccTLDs. Most of these were reiterations of the principles in RFC 1591. Since that time, RFC
1591 as elaborated by ICP-1, taken together, have been the governing documents from which
ccTLD managers have, at least officially, taken their instructions. The relevant portions of ICP-
18 may be summarized as follows:

• TLD managers are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the
community. ccTLD managers are performing a public service on behalf of the
Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
inappropriate. It is appropriate, however, to be concerned about "responsibilities"
and "service" to the community. The TLD manager must also extend fair
treatment to all groups in the domain that request domain names, and should
demonstrate operational capability in the administration of the DNS service.

• The desires of the government of a country with regard to delegation of a ccTLD
will be taken very seriously. IANA and/or ICANN will make them a major
consideration in any TLD delegation or transfer discussions.

• Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the proposed TLD
manager is the appropriate party.

• In cases where there is misconduct or violation of the policies set forth in RFC
1591 or ICP-1, IANA may revoke and re-delegate a TLD to another manager.

Since RFC 1591's recognition of the important role that governments play in the
administration of ccTLDs, ICANN has espoused the principle that the DNS is a public resource
to be administered in the public interest. As such, governments or public authorities maintain
ultimate policy authority over their respective ccTLDs and should ensure that they are operated
in conformity with domestic public policy objectives, laws and regulations, and international law
and applicable international conventions.9

B. Trends

7
Ibid.
8
Jon Postel, ICANN : “ICP-1 - Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (ccTLD
Administration and Delegation)”, May 1999 <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm>
9
ICANN Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs Presented by Governmental Advisory
Committee, http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm.



Notwithstanding the basic policy infrastructure under RFC 1591 and ICP-1, ccTLD
governance has not been without its peculiar challenges. These are attributable, for the most part,
to the early practice observed by Dr. Postel who delegated the ccTLD administration to
individuals without formal documentation relating to the delegation. This situation remained
unchanged for a time. While some delegees managed to become vital Internet institutions,
enjoying the support of the local Internet community, in other instances, the mismanagement of a
ccTLD led to the replacement of a ccTLD manager by way of an ICANN/IANA process known
as redelegation.

In a document entitled “ccTLD Constituency's Best Practice Guidelines”10, the successful
performance of a ccTLD manager depends on its approval and acceptance by the local and
global Internet communities, as well as the competent fulfillment of the technical operations of
the ccTLD.11 While there is no single model for ccTLD administration,12 ICANN however, is
trying to shift ccTLD delegations from individuals, who were designated informally as
administrative and technical contacts, to organizations operating under a framework of
accountability. This, the ICANN believes, is a positive step toward the stable and professional
operation of ccTLDs in the public interest. This framework of accountability is necessary to
promote the global interoperability of the DNS and to ensure that the interests of local Internet
communities are well served. Due to its growing impact, governments have likewise taken an
interest in the Internet, particularly where matters of public policy are concerned.

Starting in the year 2000, ICANN encouraged ccTLD Administrators to document their
relationship with ICANN with respect to the delegation. In this regard, it developed two models:
(a) a triangular or trilateral set-up, evidenced by a Sponsorship Agreement between ICANN and
the ccTLD Administrator wherein the parties agree that the government will assume
responsibility for overseeing the interest of the country concerned and its Internet community in
the management and administration of the pertinent ccTLD; and (b) a bilateral set-up, evidenced
by a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the ccTLD Administrator

To this end, ICANN has entered into Sponsorship Agreements with the ccTLD
Administrators of Australia, Kenya, Japan, Sudan, Taiwan and Uzbekistan. It also has existing
Memoranda of Agreement with the ccTLD Administrators of Palestine, Nigeria, Afghanistan,
Burundi, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Malawi. This means that, to date, not all
ccTLD Administrators have a formal contract with ICANN, though the process is on-going.

10
Best Practices and Redelegation Working Group of the ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO : Best
Practice Guidelines for ccTLD Managers, June 2000
11
There is some indication that the statements made under this document have not been spared from
criticism, including assertions that this was an attempt at the bureaucratization of the Net, similar to
developments in 1850s with postal networks, 1870s with telegraphic networks, 1950s with radio and
television broadcasting (Caslon Analytics).
12
Instead, across the globe, as will be further discussed in this paper, ccTLD registry has been the
responsibility of –
a. Individuals;
b. Academic institutions;
c. Government agencies;
d. Specialist NGOs;
e. Commercial entities (some of which do not have a close association with the particular nation or
territory and, as in the case of Gambia, may involve a single person).



C. Structure of ccTLDs as an Industry

While there is as yet no definitive study on the structure of the ccTLD industry in the
Philippines, the Report of the NEDA Study Group rendered in 200213 indicates that DotPH,
Inc.14 and its related companies can be found in all levels of activity in the ccTLD industry. To
provide sufficient context and aid in the understanding of the importance of structuring the
administration of the .PH ccTLD, the authors feel it necessary to discuss briefly the structure of
the ccTLD as an industry.

What is essentially characterized as regulation of the domain name industry involves two
primary actors – the relevant government agency and private entities. Caslon Analytics indicates
that governments across the globe generally do not yet have departments or agencies dedicated to
the task of regulating the domain name industry. An observable lack in ccTLD specific
legislation has also been noted in various jurisdictions. It is relevant, under this Study, to note
further that –

On a day-to-day basis most government regulatory involvement with the
industry involves trade practices concerns, primarily at the retail level. There has
been little attention to industry concentration …15

Part of the industry structure is registry operation. Per an IANA document dated 1 April
2002 on the Technical Specifications and Policies of ccTLD Operations, assuming registry or
ccTLD administration and management requires technical undertakings, amongst which are
connectivity, operational capability, RFC compliance, and tagged domain names. In brief,
registry operations involve maintenance of databases.

The retail sector of the industry is understood as being comprised of registrars and
resellers. Certain jurisdictions recognize agents. Registrars register domain names in behalf of
domain name holders. In certain jurisdictions, registrars may be ISPs. Retail prices charged by
registrars may be affected by the registry’s wholesale price.

According to Caslon Analytics, the resale sector is constituted by entities that deal in
previously registered domain names, and

…[t]here are no generally accepted figures on the number of
participants in the retail sector or its dimensions. Major registrars are often
public companies whose disclosures provide statistics about transactions
and revenue. However, the nature of their relationship with

13
NEDA : Memorandum re: Study Group’s Findings on the .PH Controversy, 14 January 2002
14
In order to avoid any confusion that may arise due to the multiplicity of company names and the various
Disini companies (as noted in the NEDA report, above), then, unless otherwise specifically indicated, in
this paper “DotPH” shall be used as a generic term for these Disini companies, including PH Domain
Foundation and DotPH Domains.
15
http://www.caslon.com.au/domainsprofile7.htm.



agents…means that comprehensive figures on registrations through agents
aren’t available….16

D. Principles behind Redelegation

Earlier it had been mentioned that in many instances, informal delegations have had to
give way to redelegation. This is a scenario that may be relevant to the .PH ccTLD
administration, necessitating a brief discussion of the principles behind redelegation.

Since the issuance of ICP-1, several redelegations have been effected by IANA and/or
ICANN. It is worthy of note, however, that rarely are two redelegation situations exactly the
same. Some requests for redelegation are highly contested, while others are negotiated. Thus,
while there are basic procedures to follow in the redelegation of ccTLD managers, the progress
and urgency of each case may vary.

Ideally, the IANA prefers a negotiated request for redelegation, whereby the interests of
the local Internet community, the government or public authority involved, and the ccTLD
manager are adequately represented. It tries to have any contending parties reach agreement
amongst themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending
parties agree. Originally, only in cases where the designated manager has substantially
misbehaved would IANA step in.17

In February 2000, ICANN formulated the Principles for Delegation and Administration
of ccTLDs, presented by Governmental Advisory Committee18, which discussed the basic
principles behind delegations, summarized below as follows:

• In cases where there is an agreement between the government and the manager,
and the manager contravenes the terms and conditions of such agreement or the
term of such agreement expires, the government has the right to notify ICANN of
such occurrence, and ICANN shall act with promptness to reassign the delegation
in coordination with the government.

• In the absence of an agreement between the government and the manager,
ICANN may reassign the delegation upon the request of the government and
presentation of evidence that the administrator does not have the support of the
relevant local community and government, or if the manager breached and failed
to remedy other material provisions of RFC 1591.

• If ICANN notifies the relevant government that the ccTLD is being operated in a
manner that threatens the stability of the DNS or the Internet, or has otherwise
breached and failed to remedy other material provisions of the communication

16
Ibid.
17
Postel, Jon. RFC 1591, March 1994.
18
ICANN-GAC: Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs
http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm.



between ICANN and the manager, the government should cooperate with ICANN
to remedy the situation or effect the reassignment of the delegation for the ccTLD.

• With respect to future delegations or reassignment of delegations, ICANN should
delegate the administration of a ccTLD only to an organization, enterprise or
individual that has been designated by the government.

• The manager should enjoy the appropriate rights under applicable law and should
not be subject to discriminatory or arbitrary practices, policies or procedures from
ICANN or the government.

III.
The Philippine Scenario

A. Background

In the Philippines, the ccTLD .PH domain is currently administered by Philippine
Domain Foundation, Inc. Sources indicate that in 1989, Dr. Jon Postel had informally assigned
the .PH domain in care of Mr. Jose Emmanuel Disini, who continued to administer the same, as
sole registrar of commercial .PH domain names, through his company, DotPH, Inc.19

From 1990 to 1994, it appears that Mr. Disini issued .PH domains only to customers of
his own Internet service provider, the E-Mail Company (“EMC”), since there was no real
connection to the Internet at the time. During this period, the administration of the .PH domain
name was run informally, not as a fully formed company or foundation. According to the White
Paper submitted by the Philippine Domain Administration Convenors (“PhilDAC”), “[c]hecks
for the PH domain registrations were made payable directly to Mr. Disini, and no official
receipts were issued for these services. Domain fees ranged from PhP450.00 to PhP1,350.00 per
domain and were originally intended to be one-time charges, with no annual renewal fees.”20

PhilDAC spearheaded the move for reforms in the administration of the .PH domain.
PhilDAC stressed the importance of the .PH domain as the only globally recognized country
code domain assigned to the Philippines, for the latter’s identification and promotion of its
culture, products and services. Moreover, in other countries, the local Internet community has a
significant say in managing their country ccTLDs, for the following reasons:

• ccTLDs affect the national image and interest;
• proper representation is equitable and fair, and is the growing trend worldwide;
• proper representation guards against conflicts of interest and unfair competition.

PhilDAC espoused the separation of the registry, or the list of people, companies and
Internet addresses—from the registrar, or the entity that sells the domain names. It also proposed

19
PhilDAC, “The PH Domain and the Need for Policy Reforms.”
20
Ibid.



that the registry should be administered by an independent organization that is representative of
the Philippine Internet community, while registrars are permitted to compete freely to improve
pricing and service.21

In 1994, however, when the first live link to the Internet was established in the
Philippines through the PHnet Foundation under the helm of Dr. Rodolfo Villarica, PHnet
negotiated with Mr. Disini for the foundation to assume responsibility for operating the .PH
domain registry. With the assistance and approval of Dr. Postel as well as Mr. Steve Goldstein,
the parties then negotiated an agreement transferring “.edu.ph”, “.gov.ph” and “.org.ph” to the
non-profit PHnet Foundation, while Disini would retain the commercial “.com.ph” sub-domain.
Subsequently, only a partial transfer of sub-domains was effected, with management of “.edu.ph”
and “.gov.ph” being turned-over to PHnet. PHnet subsequently voluntarily transferred
administration of “.gov.ph” to the Department of Science and Technology (“DOST”). Dr. Postel
passed-away before this agreement could be fully implemented.22

In 1999, Mr. Disini established the PH Domain Foundation, Inc.23 as the new body
charged with selling .PH domains to the public. Domain registration fees were raised to
US$50.00 for two years with annual renewal fee of US$25.00. The lifetime domain policy was
unilaterally removed.

In 2000, DotPH, Inc.24 was established as the entity to deal with consumers and resellers.
Registration fees were once again unilaterally raised, to US$70.00 for two years, with an annual
renewal fee of US$35.00. Subsequently, Mr. Disini also set up a company called DotPhone,
Inc.25

Writing in March 2001, Mr. Jim Ayson summarized what were then the emerging issues
regarding the administration of the .PH ccTLD, which he was able to collate as moderator of an
Internet community mailing list. The initial issues had to do with (a) series of recruitment letters
from the DotPH staff and (b) “repeated waves of unsolicited email from EMC marketing
addressed to Filipino eGroups using a 3rd party mailing service.” He also noted an “overall
feeling … that PH domains would have been attractive from a nationalistic point of view, but
most people found gneric “.coms” cheaper. Even then, he already observed that one list member
mentioned the term “redelegation” in relation to comments regarding DotPH.26 At around the

21
C. Wong, “Settling the Domain Debate” in Digital Life, 29 July 2003,
http://www.info.com.ph/~chinwong/settlingthedomain.html.
22
Interview with Dr. Rodolfo M. Villarica.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid. Note that PhilDAC White Paper indicates that DotPhone is not a Philippine-registered company.
26
“DotPH - Dousing the flames, http://lists.q-linux.com/pipermail/ph-isp/2001-March/000672.html. Mr.
Ayson shared his personal views at the time, as follows:
b) The perception of the market is that DotPh domains at $35/month are
expensively priced, which leads most users to prefer obtaining dotcoms. I would
prefer more attractive pricing to promote use of the .PH domain.
c) The commercial exploitation of .PH as domain for phones should have been
done with consultation with the Net community and/or the Philippine government,
since the TLD involved represents the Republic of the Philippines.
d) The special access to domains afforded by the ccTLD to the E-Mail Company
(EMC) and DotPhone Inc is an unfair advantage for these Disini companies.



same time, news of DotPH launching commercial exploitation of .PH ccTLD as a domain for
phones spread. As the local Internet community had not been consulted about this launch,
concerns were raised about the possible alienation of the .PH domain to a foreign entity.27

In 2001, the issues were brought before the Department of Trade and Industry (“DTI”),
through the Information Technology and E-Commerce Council (“ITECC”) Consumer Protection
Subcommittee then headed by DTI Assistant Secretary Toby Melissa Monsod. A series of
mediation meetings were held between Mr. Joel Disini and PhilDAC. Subsequently, DTI
requested PhilDAC to gather complaints against DotPH and file the same before the Bureau of
Trade Relations and Consumer Protection (BTRCP) of the DTI. According to PhilDAC,
negotiations with Mr. Disini fell apart following his declaration that he had no intention of
transferring management of the domain name registry to a more representative body.

In a letter dated 27 November 2002, DTI-NCR informed the Corporate Communications
Manager of DotPH, Inc. that four out of five cases filed against DotPH, Inc. were dismissed.
Complainants, including Ayson point-out that some of the complaints were dismissed because
the BTRCP did not consider them consumer issues, but rather one of policy and governance, and
thus not within the ambit of the BTRCP. Only one case seems to have been dismissed “with
merit” as, during the course of the hearings, DotPH stopped it's campaign to market .PH as
.PHone. This highlights what strides can be achieved given community participation and unity.
Minutes for that particular case provide in part:

Admin case #02-73
FEBC Philippines
represented by Mr. Jaime I. Reyes
(counsel by the same)

vs.

DotPH Inc.
represented by Mr. Emil Avanceña
(counsel by Atty. Excelsis V. Antolin)

e) It is time for the Philippine government to be made aware of the ccTLD
administration and to exercise some say in the way the PH domain is applied.
Furthermore, the DNS issues needs to be considered in the evolving Philippine
IT policy….
f) After 12 years of the ccTLD administration by the current party, it is time for a
performance review, given that complaints are reported now and then. If there
are deficiencies reported these should be made clear to the existing ccTLD so
they can be addressed and corrected. The review in my opinion should be
conducted by the Philippine government in consultation with members of the Net
community,
g) If the ccTLD performance review has been deemed extremely unsatisfactory,
then the process of redelegation as defined by ICANN can be taken – but only as
a last resort.
h) In the event that redelegation is successful, the ccTLD administration should
be handled by a non-profit foundation guided by a board of advisors with proper
representatives from various sectors….
27
Archives of the email list ph-cyberview@yahoogroups.com



Hearing officer: Atty. F.O. Sayas

Actions taken:
================

Verbatim:
Complainant has formally withdrawn complaint against DotPH on
the ground that the marketing strategies they were complaining
before (dotphone domain) and the evidences as such are not there
anymore so there is nothing to complain about.

Jim Ayson's complaint was referred elsewhere since "policy issues were not within the
jurisdiction of the mediation meetings." The complaints should then have been referred to the
DTI's Office of Special Concerns, but before that could happen the entire .PH issue was
transferred back to ITECC. Indeed, as many of the issues were considered policy concerns rather
than trade and consumer issues; hence, these were then subsequently referred by ITECC to the
National Economic Development Authority (“NEDA”).

These issues were specifically referred to a task force headed by the National Economic
Development Authority, which, in January 2002, submitted a Memorandum to the President of
the Republic of the Philippines (“Memorandum”)28. This Memorandum provides in pertinent
parts as follows:

The Philippine Case

6. DotPH, Inc. and its related companies can be found in all levels
of activity. At present, DotPH, Inc. claims to have 150
registrars here and abroad that offer .ph sub-domain names to
the consumer. DotPH, Inc. is also saying that the proposed
phone features of the .ph domain is a technology that will link
cellular phones with the Internet in an affordable, easy-to-use
package.

7. In examining the alleged ‘dilution’ issue, the Study Group had
found out that the 150 partners of DotPH, Inc. are more
resellers than registrars in that while the system is automated,
direct access to the registry can only be done through an access
(a shared registry system) designed by DotPH, Inc. It had also
established that the more relevant issue is the lack of
transparency and consultation in policy changes and
management of the .ph domain, thus, a governance issue.
While the company sometimes attempts to engage in
consultations via e-groups, there is an obvious break in trust
between the DotPH registry and the local Internet community.

28
NEDA: Memorandum re: Study Group’s Findings on the .PH Controversy, 14 January 2002



Options Available to the Philippine Internet Community

8. The ccTLD administration being in the nature of a public trust,
the government has responsibility to ensure that this public
trust is safeguarded. In this case, therefore, there is a rationale
for the government to determine or facilitate the selection of a
solution from among the following options:

Option 1: status quo – In this situation, policies for the registry
and mechanisms for accountability and transparency are left to
the discretion of DotPH, Inc.

Option 2: status quo + internal policy board – DotPH, Inc. will
formalize an internal policy board for purposes of policy
making for the registry, with an ex-officio seat for a
government appointee.

Option 3: status quo + external policy board – DotPH, Inc.
voluntarily submits policy-making of the registry to an external
policy board with open or restricted membership.

Option 4: request for redelegation of the ccTLD to a non-profit
organization – There are two possible permutations to this
option: Option 4A where the non-profit organization both
policy authority and registry, and Option 4B where there is a
not-for-profit policy authority and separate registry/ies.

Next Steps

9. Options 1, 2, and 3 possible in the immediate term while
Option 4 will need redelegation by IANA, now subsumed
under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN). If Option 3 is selected, the DTI, by its
legal mandate, will be tasked to come up with an implementing
mechanism, preferably through public consultations. If Option
4, a wider public consultation should be undertaken to
determine whether Option 4A or 4B would be selected. A
formal request should then be transmitted to ICANN
immediately.

10. The Study Group is also recommending that the government
confirm/formalize its official representative to the ICANN-
GAC, inform ICANN, through a letter addressed to its
President, about the position of the government on the .ph
ccTLD management issue and the steps the latter has taken and
are underway to resolve the matter.



The draft version of the attached report was presented in the 12th
ITECC Meeting on 08 October 2001. The agreements during
meeting were the following: (a) the implementation of Option 3 in
the short-term an Option 4 in the long-term will be explored; and
(b) the DTI will discuss with DotPH, Inc. the ITECC decision on
the matter.

B. The NTC/CICT Advisory Board

On 2 September 2003, oversight function over domain name registration and internet-
related concerns were delegated to the National Telecommunications Commission (“NTC”).29 A
Memorandum from the Executive Secretary to the Commissioner of the NTC states:

Pursuant to the 15th Meeting of the Information Technology and E-
Commerce Council (ITECC)30 held on 25 June 2003, it was agreed
that the oversight function over the domain name registration and
internet-related concerns31 shall be delegated to the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC). In view thereof, the
NTC is hereby directed to draft the guidelines in the performance
of its oversight function and conduct public consultations
necessary thereto. An advisory board shall also be created to assist
the NTC in the performance of this oversight function. The Board
shall be composed of the NTC, ITECC Legal and Regulatory
Committee private sector Co-Chair and representatives from the
DOST-ASTI, the private sector and the academe.

As an initial step, the NTC called for position papers from the members of the local
Internet community. Those that submitted position papers included the Philippine Internet
Commerce Society (“PICS”) and the Philippine Internet Service Providers Organization
(“PISO”). The Philippine Computer Society (“PCS”) submitted an endorsement of the PICS
position paper. PhilDAC also reiterated the position it had taken under its White Paper. PICS
released its position paper in October 2003, in which it referred to the Report of the NEDA Study
Group, highlighting the four options. PICS stressed the importance of creating the proper
industry structure by pointing out the necessity of unbundling the offerings of the current
administrator and segregating the registry and registrar functions. The group’s position paper
included a discussion of policy recommendations towards ccTLD governance reform in the
Philippines, emphasizing the nature of .PH as a public resource and calling for transparency in
administration, active community participation, and creation of competitive and fair business

29
Alberto Romulo, Executive Secretary, Office of the Presdient: Executive Memorandum to NTC:
Delegating Oversight Function Over Domain Name Registration and Internet-related Concerns to the
National Telecommunications Commission, 2 September 2003
30
Creation of ITECC and subsequent dissolution, following creation of the Commission on Information
and Communications Technology.
31
Refer also to: World Summit of the Information Society, “Tunis – Agenda for the Information Society”
Sec. 58 http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.htm ; Also: United Nations “Report of the Working Group on Internet
Governance”, Para. 12, Château de Bossey, June 2005 http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html



environment. Disini and DotPH were also invited to submit its own position paper. We have seen
no indication that, up to this point in time, Mr. Joel Disini or DotPH submitted a paper.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of the Executive Secretary, an Advisory Board to the NTC
was formed including as members, representative/s from the NTC, the ITECC Legal and
Regulatory Committee private sector Co-Chair, representatives from DOST-ASTI, the academe,
PhilDAC, PISO, PCS, PETEF and PICS, with representatives acting in principal and observer
capacity.

DotPH was invited to nominate a representative to the NTC-AB. However, save for one
meeting where Mr. Emil Avanceña of DotPH was present, DotPH did not participate. According
to Eric Tiongson, member of the NTC-AB, the Advisory Board discussed and consulted with
industry experts and community representatives regarding the .ph administration guidelines,
which were drafted on 28 June 2004.32 After a series of meetings and discussions, drafts of the
proposed guidelines were disclosed to the public for comment and two public hearings were
held. DotPH did not send an official representative to the two public hearings.

Despite DotPH’s refusal to participate in the proceedings of the NTC-AB, it made its
views public on its website. First, DotPH, on 14 November 2003, criticized the manner of
selecting nominees to the NTC-AB. DotPH was of the view that the Advisory Board
membership should have accommodated representation by PH nameholders who were customers
of DotPH’s services, as well as DotPH registrar/resellers. DotPH further insisted that “extremist”
groups, such as PhilDAC, should have been excluded, as Disini felt that discussions with
PhilDAC had been “acrimonious and unproductive in the past.”

Second, in its comments to the draft Guidelines, posted 5 February 2004, DotPH stated
that it shared common goals with the government, including reliable and robust domain name
service. However, DotPH indicated that the “effects of the regulations on the PH domain must be
carefully studied … and specific problems must be identified and solutions found via a
collaborative effort of both parties …”

Third, as regards the public hearings conducted on the Guidelines, DotPH confirmed its
refusal to attend the public hearings. DotPH indicated that the “government has not responded to
inputs given by DotPH.”

Fourth, on 30 March 2004, DotPH provided additional comments on the Guidelines,
which may be summarized as follows:

1) The Guidelines create more problems than they solve. NTC can provide
effective oversight by monitoring service levels and ensuring robust and
efficient Domain Name Service is provided.

2) The Government does not have sovereign rights over the PH domain.
Asserting such rights violates the principle by which Top Level Domains
are operated.

32
Interview with Eric Jose P. Tiongson, member, NTC Advisory Board



3) The Guidelines violate the Constitution by arbitrarily compelling the
Administrator to give up his Registrar business. Shutting down the DotPH
Registrar will be detrimental to consumers and PH registrants.

4) The Guidelines are discriminatory since they specifically target DotPH
and yet leave the competition free to operate as they wish.

5) There is potential for collusion between the NTC and those who resell
competing domains.

On 30 April 2004, DotPH formally submitted to the NTC its Opposition to the Guidelines
reiterating its views and arguments as summarized above.

In the same month, a comprehensive monograph rebutting Mr. Disini’s and DotPH’s
comments was made by Horatio Cadiz of PHnet33, salient portions of which may be quoted and
summarized as follows:

1) “Contrary to DotPH’s assertions, the Guidelines are indeed focused on
problems which need solutions …”34, viz. accountability, transparency
and a level and competitive environment.

2) Disini cites the provisions of RFC 1591 that state “… concerns about
rights and ownership are inappropriate …” in order to deny that the
government has sovereign rights over the domain. However, this same
citation also indicates that there are no private (proprietary) rights
attached to the same. Since the .PH domain is not a private resource or
property, then “… it logically follows that the government should be
involved in its policy formulation as the ultimate representative of the
community …”.35 To further support the role of government, Cadiz
quotes IANA ccTLD News Memo #1 which states, in part: “An
additional factor has become very important since RFC 1591 was
written … The IANA takes the desires of the government of the
country very seriously, and will take them as a major consideration in
any transition discussion regarding the ccTLDs.”

3) Any claim that government is compelling the surrender of a (domain
registration) business, likewise contradicts RFC 1591 which Disini
himself refers to as “… universally recognized as the basis for which
all Top Level Domains are delegated …”. Further, ICANN’s GAC
clearly states that: “No private intellectual nor property rights should
inhere in the ccTLD itself, nor accrue to the delegee as the result of

33
Horacio T. Cadiz, On the DotPH Comments to the NTC Proposed Guidellines on the Administration of
the Philippine Country Code Top Level Domain, 16 April 2004
34
ibid. p.5
35
ibid. p.4



delegation or to any entity as a result of the management,
administration or marketing of the ccTLD.”36

4) There is no competition to discriminate against as “… DotPH is
[unlike] the COM and NET Registries. DotPH is the only Registry for
the Philippine ccTLD. The COM and NET Registries are registries for
different domains …”,37 thus the discrimination argument fails.

5) Cadiz also refutes Disini’s comments on collusion with NTC, as the
NTC Advisory Board is composed of members drawn from a broad
spectrum of the IT Industry. Further, the draft Guidelines have been
circulated widely and public hearings have been held. “The process
had not been held in secret.”38

Attempts were made in 2006 by FMA and the researchers to solicit direct input from
DotPH and its representatives. However, despite initial communications between FMA’s
Executive Director and a representative of DotPH, no substantive response has been received.
Thus the views of DotPH have instead been quoted from publicly available sources.

C. Salient Features of the NTC/CICT Guidelines

In August 2004, the Commission on Information and Communications Technology
(“CICT”) issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 (series of 2004), the Guidelines in the
Administration of the .PH Domain Name.39 Consistent with the framework of accountability
that is now being espoused by the ICANN/IANA, the CICT Guidelines provides that:

(a) the .PH domain is a public resource administered in trust for, and in the
interest of the Internet community and the Philippines;
(b) the .PH Administrator, as trustee, is accountable to the internet community;
(c) the Philippine government has public-policy authority over the .PH domain
name to ensure a legal and policy environment for .PH domain name
registration that fosters effective and fair conditions of competition;
(d) the administration and management of the .PH domain name must comply
with the public policy objectives of the Philippine Government, guided by the
Principles and Best Practice Guidelines of ICANN, GAC, WIPO, ITU and
other recognized international bodies and by effective and meaningful
communication and consultation primarily with the internet community, while
mindful of the interests of the global community; and
(e) the local Internet community must be assured of an efficient, stable, equitable
and transparent administration of the .PH domain.

36
ICANN Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs Presented by Governmental Advisory
Committee, http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm
37
Horacio T. Cadiz, On the DotPH Comments to the NTC Proposed Guidellines on the Administration of
the Philippine Country Code Top Level Domain, 16 April 2004, p.10
38
Ibid. p.17
39
CICT: Memorandum Circular No. 1 – Guidelines in the Administration of the .PH Domain Name



The CICT Guidelines further gives the government, through the CICT or the NTC, the
following powers, among others:

(a) To designate the delegee for the .PH ccTLD. No delegation from
ICANN/IANA shall be deemed valid in the Philippines, unless the delegee
has been previously designated by the CICT40;
(b) To exercise oversight function over .PH domain name concerns41;
(c) To require annual reports on the implementation of the CICT Guidelines42;
(d) To conduct periodic evaluations of the performance of the Administrator in
terms of its compliance with the CICT Guidelines and the extent to which it
satisfies the needs of the local and global internet community43; Designate a
new manager in the event of redelegation44;
(e) Access to all zones on a continuing basis to check the domain’s operational
status and database accuracy45;
(f) To formulate guidelines for redelegation and replacement procedures.46
(g) To commence redelegation proceedings for contravention by the
Administrator of the Memorandum of Agreement47.
(h) To formulate guidelines for service requirements48;
(i) To require bi-annual reports on network design, backup and disaster recovery
strategy and recovery commitments, physical and network-based strategies,
and related documents49;
(j) Formulate guidelines for an alternative dispute resolution system50;
(k) Authority to approve the relocation of the primary servers to places outside
the Philippines51;
(l) Approval of the escrow agent or mirror site52; and
(m) A right to be kept informed of any changes to the information concerning the
domain that is maintained in the ICANN’s root registry database.53

Upon the effectivity of the Guidelines and pursuant to its Interim Provisions, the CICT
informed Mr. Disini of the requirement under Article XII, Section 2, for the current administrator
to choose between retaining the registry function or maintaining its registrar business.

Given the tentative policy direction and apparent local Internet community move towards
the redelegation of the .PH domain name administration, what follows are: (a) brief description

40
Article III, Section 4 of the CICT Guidelines.
41
Id, at Article V, Section 6.
42
Id, at Section 9.
43
Id., at Section 10.
44
Id, at Section 3.
45
Id, at Section 6.
46
Id, at Section 6.
47
Id. at Article XI, Section 2[c];
48
Id, at Article VIII, Section 4.
49
Id, at Section 10.
50
Id, at Article X, Section 6.
51
Id, at Section 5.
52
Id, at Article IV, Section 4.
53
Id, at Section 7.



of the milieu created by the Guidelines, and (b) further issuances that are required under the
Guidelines.

Notwithstanding the numerous cooperative efforts exerted by CICT to create conditions
conducive for Mr. Disini to make the required selection between the registry and registrar
functions as provided under the Guidelines, neither Disini nor DotPH have indicated a choice.
Thus, both Registry and Registrar functions continue to be under the control of the Disini
companies.

Furthermore, instead of progressing towards a decision, DotPH, in a communication to
CICT dated 18 February 2005, stated, “for 18 months, you met with the managers of the Gov.PH
and Edu.PH to find ways to improve the PH Domain system. Yet, no steps were taken to fix the
problems of Gov.PH and Edu.PH … [n]ot attempts were made to get technical data about the
service you claimed to improve. You didn’t measure server downtimes. You didn’t check server
response times. Nor did you fix lame delegations on the Gov.PH and Edu.PH nameservers.”

In another letter dated 25 February 2005 to Secretary Virgilio Peña, DotPH reiterated the
same points, and added –

The people running the Gov.PH or Edu.PH registries were both on your
Domain Advisory Board which drafted the Guidelines, and supposedly
had significant input in formulating these. Yet their inability to run their
own systems efficiently is shocking ...
………
The question is – if you succeed in gaining control of the DotPH Registry
– is who will run the PH Domain?
………
Transferring DotPH’s operations to a mom-and-pop operation will simply
kill the PH Domain and strand thousands of existing nameholders….

In order to clarify and by way of rejoinder, it has been pointed out that PHnet has three
distinct, redundant servers. Indeed, there have been downtimes for an individual server, but
never an instance when all three servers were down simultaneously. As designed, the servers are
intended to provide redundant service for the Edu.PH registry.54 PHnet has been intending to put
in two additional servers to be based at United States universities, but PHnet has not been able to
modify its delegation on the domain servers controlled by Disini. According to Mr. Horacio
Cadiz of PHnet, Mr. Disini has locked the delegation and has not provided PHnet with any
means of accessing those records unless a service fee is paid. PHnet has refused to pay this
amount for it would in effect be a recognition of Mr. Disini’s right to charge for the Edu.PH
delegation, contrary to the spirit of the agreement with Dr. Postel.

D. Post Advisory Board & Guidelines

54
Interview with Horacio T. Cadiz of PHnet; also
http://www.chinwong.com/index.php/site/comments/our_domain/



Subsequent to issuance of the NTC/CICT Advisory Board Guidelines, the Foundation for
Media Alternatives (FMA), starting in November 2005, convened a series of consultative
meetings with a view to producing an updated study paper on the matter of .ph domain
governance, which would inform and assist government agencies, as well as other stakeholders.
This paper, forming part of a seven-part research series which FMA was preparing with the
support of IDRC-Canada, would provide an overview of the (Philippine) ccTLD issue, both
retrospectively and also strategically in terms of moving forward.55 As with the other research
papers, this paper is “primarily meant to supplement the work of the CICT.”56

During a preliminary meeting held on Dec. 6, 2005 during which representatives of the
private sector, advocacy groups and government were in attendance, FMA provided an overview
of its current projects which are intended as contributory to public interest policy development
and the building and strengthening of stakeholder communities in the Philippines. The team for
the Internet Governance (.ph domain) study paper led by Winthrop Yu and Gwen Grecia-deVera
shall provide a comprehensive historical background on the issue, as well as a recommended
roadmap for the redelegation process. The research, paper, consultative meetings, validation
workshops and other public fora are being undertaken with a view to contributing to CICT’s
work in resolving the issue. Both private sector and government representatives stressed the
research paper should also provide strategic steps for actual implementation.57 Several more such
consultations with stakeholders and government representatives were convened by FMA and
held throughout the first half of 2006.

Salient points raised during these meetings include:

1. The need for a political decision on the part of government to enforce its
guidelines on the matter;
2. Clarification of internal redelegation processes, including: the recommended
modality of choosing a successor Registry, consideration of bidding modes,
pre-qualification requirements and other terms;
3. Re-statement of the fact that external redelegation (with ICANN) will only
proceed after internal redelegation processes (e.g. choosing a successor
domain manager) has been completed;
4. Noting that back-up (or mirroring) of .ph ccTLD servers can be effected by
ICANN and various regional NICs or large IXs immediately upon the request
of government even without a redelegation request;
5. Moving the transition forward by - communications with ICANN, initiating
data escrow provisions ([4] above), transition period oversight by DOST-
ASTI and CICT, finalizing these and other issues such as fees and funding,
transition body, term, etc. by CICT;
6. Setting of “next steps” including drafting and submission of various
communications.

Subsequently, drafts of communications, including a ccTLD transition roadmap were
submitted by PICS - Gwen Grecia de Vera to FMA in mid-January. The first draft of the ccTLD

55
Al Alegre to Winthrop Yu et al. Email message dated Nov. 12, 2005 10:10 pm
56
Nina Somera FMA - “Meeting on the Technical Aspects ...” v1 - Dec 20, 2005, v2 Jan 05, 2006
57
Nina Somera FMA - Minutes of Dec. 6 Meeting - “DotPH_FGD_6dec05a.rtf”



research paper was likewise submitted to FMA and also circulated to stakeholders for
comments/inputs in mid-March. A focus group discussion / meeting was then convened by FMA
on April 6, 2006 which included a wider array of representatives of the private sector, advocacy
groups and government, as the meeting was intended to review all seven ongoing FMA
initiatives/research papers in light of the announced pending resignation of CICT Chair Ver Peña..58
At this meeting Winthrop Yu reported that he had addressed a meeting of the Business Continuity
Management Association (BCMAP) where he was able to clarify the domain name issue and address
their .ph domain concerns, while Atty. Gwen Grecia de Vera indicated that a second draft of the
“ccTLD .ph domain” paper would be circulated after Easter. This second version of the paper was
circulated on April 14, 2006. Then at an FMA civil society caucus on May 16, 200659 convened for
updates on all seven initiatives, Atty. Gwen de Vera informed those present that the “.ph ccTLD”
research team would be conducting interviews prior to a final draft. Atty. de Vera then circulated
copies of the paper’s outline and schedule on May 22, 2006. Subsequently on June 1, 2006
stakeholders and CSOs were convened by FMA prior to meeting at the national consultations on the
ICT Roadmap held on June 5, 2006.

In fine, with a view towards breaking the impasse and resolving issues related to .ph
ccTLD policy and governance, the FMA-coordinated round-table discussions and consultations
garnered significant input from various government agencies, technical experts and other
stakeholders.60 These will be incorporated into and substantively inform the latter
recommendatory portions of this paper.

Meantime, in order to move forward, the following portions will focus on: (a) survey of
possible models for the administration of ccTLD, consistent with the Guidelines and (b) survey
of relevant re-delegation processes undertaken by IANA. The discussion includes a brief
overview of the process involved in re-delegation and a summary of selected Asian practices
with respect to ccTLD administration.

IV.
Survey of ccTLD Administration Models

Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa reviewed the relationships between
national governments, the ccTLD Administrators and ICANN in forty-five (45) countries around
the world. The result of the project, known as the ccTLD Governance Project, was published on
the web61 and showed that ccTLDs were administered either by agency of government, the
private sector (either individuals or private corporations), non-profit corporations or academic
institutions. The survey also showed the extent of each ccTLD Administrator’s relationship with
government (characterized as formal, informal or none) and the existence of formal
documentation of the delegation from ICANN. The list is by no means comprehensive, dealing
as it does with only 45 of the ccTLD Administrators around the world.

58
Nina Somera FMA - Email dated April 5, 2006 re: “Notes on April 4, 2006 CSO Meeting”
59
Nina Somera FMA - Email dated May 18, 2006 re: “Civil Society Caucus on ICT Policy Development”
60
Damian Domingo Mapa and Dr. Emmanuel Lallana, Jr., commissioners of the Commission on
Information and Communications Technologies, Dennis Villorente, Advanced Science and Technology
Institute of the Department of Science and Technology ; variousFMA minutes Ibid.
61
http://www.cctldinfo.com



Government-administered Registry

Table 1: Countries where the ccTLD is part of the government
Country Code Name Government Government ICANN
Relationship Activity Agreement
China CN CNNIC Formal None None
El Salvador SV SVNET Informal Logistical None
center
Finland FI FICORA Formal Legislation None
India IN NCST Formal None None
Malawi MW Malawi Formal None MOU
SDNP
Malaysia MY MYNIC Formal None None
Morocco MA ANRT Formal None None
Norway NO NORID Informal Workgroup None
Spain ES RED.ES Formal Legislation None
Tunisia TN ATI Formal Legislation None

In these countries, governments have taken an active hand in the administration of
ccTLDs by designating an agency usually under the auspices of the country’s science and
technology department or ministry. Thus, for example, the ccTLD Administrator for China is the
China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). China’s Ministry of Information Industry
takes charge of the business management of CNNIC, while administrative management is done
by the Chinese Academy of Science. The .es domain is managed by Entidad Public Empresrial
Red.es, which is under Spain’s Ministry of Science and Technology. The ccTLD Administrator
for Malawi is the Malawi Sustainable Development Network Programme (Malawi SDNP), a
UNDP funded government programme that assists in the development of the Internet in Malawi.
Malaysia’s ccTLD is managed by the Malaysian Network Information Centre (MYNIC), a
division of MIMOS Berhad, a mission-oriented research and development government
corporation. India’s ccTLD Administrator is the National Centre for Software Technology
(NCST). NCST is a scientific research and development institution under the Ministry of
Information Technology.

Private Sector Registry

Table 2: Countries where the ccTLD is from the private sector
Ghana GH NCS None None None
Indonesia ID IDNIC Informal None None
Japan JP JPRS Formal Endorsement Yes
Libya LY nic.ly None None None
Tuvalu TV .tvcorporation None None None
Ukraine UA Hostmaster None None None
United UA UAEnic Informal Legislation None
Arab
Emirates



United US Neustar Formal Contract None
States

In these countries, the ccTLD Administrator is from the private sector. For example, the
.ua domain (for Ukraine) is operated by an entity identified only as Hostmaster, Ltd., a private
company that appears to be free from government representation or control. On the other hand,
the ccTLD Administrator for Japan is the Japan Registry Service Co. (“JPRS”), a private
company. Japan is one of the few countries that executed a Sponsorship Agreement with
ICANN, with the government taking an active hand in the delegation. The Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) executed by and between the Japan Network Information Center
(“JPNIC”), the former delegee, and JPRS, explicitly gives JPNIC and the Japanese government
the right to examine whether JPRS complies with the responsibilities set out in the MOU.
Should repeated breaches occur, redelegation of the ccTLD is one of the recognized options.

Private Sector Not-For-Profit Registry

Table 3: Countries where the ccTLD is a non-profit corporation
Australia AU AUDA Formal Legislation None
Belgium BE DNS.be Informal None None
Burundi BI CNI SDNP Formal Legislation Redelegation
Canada CA CIRA Formal Agreement None
Christmas CX Dot CX Formal Endorsement Under
Island discussion
Czech CZ CZ.NIC Formal Involved in None
Republic management
Denmark DK .DIFO Informal None None
France FR AFNIC Informal Government None
reps serve on
board
Germany DE DENIC Informal Observer on None
Legal Advisory
Committee
Hong Kong HK HKIRC Formal MOU Redelegation
Ireland IE IEDR None Legislation None
Israel IL Israeli None Analysis by None
Internet Government
Association
Italy ID IDNIC Informal None None
Korea KR KRNIC Formal Approval None
Netherlands NL SIDN None Cabinet None
Review
New NZ InternetNZ Informal Endorsement None
Zealand
Peru PE Nic.pe None Legislation None
Poland PL NASK None Endorsement None



Russia RU RIPN Informal Verbal None
understanding
South ZA Namespace Informal Legislation None
Africa
Sweden SE II-stiftelsen Informal Legislation Government
Committee
Taiwan TW TWNIC Informal Endorsement None
United UK Nominet Informal Government None
Kingdom sits on Board

The ccTLD administrator, a non-profit corporation in this set-up, is usually a
representative body composed of all entities in the country with a stake in the Internet industry.
The creation of the body is a result of a consultative process undertaken towards the
development of a broadly accepted mechanism for overseeing the ccTLD administration in a
way that includes participation by the stakeholders. Australia’s .au Domain Administration
(auDA) is the model for this set-up. AuDA was formed with the following objectives:

(a) operate as a fully self-funding and not-for-profit organization;
(b) be inclusive of, and accountable to, members of the Internet community
including both the supply and demand sides;
(c) adopt open, transparent and consultative processes;
(d) aim to enhance benefits to Internet users through the promotion of
competition, fair trading and provisions for consumer protection and support;
(e) establish appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms; and
(f) represent Australian Internet industry interests in the Internet domain-name
system at national and international fora.

Similarly, Kenya’s ccTLD Administrator is the Kenya Network Information Center,
Limited (KENIC), a non-profit organization. This body was formed after the Communications
Commission of Kenya, together with a group of Kenyan Internet stakeholders
(telecommunications providers, internet associations, information society, education network,
government agencies, among others), conducted consultations and research on the idea of a non-
profit organization to manage both the administrative and technical aspects of the registry.

Academe-Based Registry

Table 4: Countries where the ccTLD is academic
Guatemala GT Universidad None Attempted None
del Valle de takeover
Guatemala
Mauritania MR NIC- None None None
Mauritanie
Mexico MX NIC-Mexico Informal Proposed None
legislation
Switzerland CH SWITCH Formal Legislation None



SWITCH, the Swiss Academic and Research Network, an academic foundation set-up by
the federal government and Switzerland’s universities, manages both Switzerland’s and
Lichtenstein’s ccTLDs. The .mx domain is administered by NIC-Mexico, which is based at the
University of Monterrey Technology Center (ITESM), but is independently administrated.
Mauritania’s .mr domain is managed by the Faculty of Science and Technology of the University
of Nouakchott with the blessing of the government’s Office of Post and Communication. The .gt
domain is administered by Guatemala’s Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, apparently without
government involvement.

Regarding delegation models, it is interesting to note that, during the discussion on
Internet Governance within PrepCom 3 of the World Summit of the Information Society at
Geneva in 2003, Vittorio Bertola, Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee of ICANN said
that “neither an intergovernmental organization nor a private Corporation alone would be
representative and legitimate enough to manage the Internet …”.62 This was further elaborated
upon in the WSIS’ “Declaration of Principles” at Geneva in 2003 viz., “Governments, as well as
private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations have an
important role and responsibility in the development of the Information Society and, as
appropriate, in decision-making processes”;63 as well as in the “Tunis Commitment” issued by
the WSIS at Tunis in 2005, “…our goals can be accomplished through the involvement,
cooperation and partnership of governments and other stakeholders, i.e. the private sector, civil
society and international organizations …”.64

V.
Survey of Redelegation Models

A. Procedures for Redelegation

The procedures for re-delegation may be summarized as follows65:

1. The entity seeking re-delegation sends a complaint to ICANN (using the template found
at http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-template.txt) with the following (complaints were
formerly received by IANA, but this is one of the functions assumed by ICANN in its
contract with the US government):

62
World Summit of the Information Society, “Individual Internet Users unsatisfied with their Role in Global
Internet Governance”, Geneva, 24 September 2003 http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.htm
63
World Summit of the Information Society, “Geneva – Declaration of Principles” Sec. B-1, Para. 20,
Geneva, 12 December 2003 http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.htm
64
World Summit of the Information Society, “Tunis Commitment” Para. 37, Tunis, 15 November 2005
http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.htm
65
ccTLD Redelegation Step-by-Step Overview, http://www.iana.org/cctld/redelegation-overview-
19jun02.htm.



a. documentation showing that the re-delegation serves the interests of the
local Internet community, including demonstration of local support and a
summary of the intended operation of the domain name;

b. documentation establishing that the organization to which the re-
delegation is sought has the appropriate technical and other skills to
operate a TLD registry;

c. legal documentation demonstrating the legal authenticity, status and
character of the proposed organization; and

d. documentation indicating that the appropriate government officials have
been informed about the upcoming re-delegation.

1. IANA then reviews the request and materials, and takes appropriate verification steps.
There is no specified period within which IANA commits to finish the review of the
materials, and thus this procedure may take time.

2. IANA requests confirmation of the re-delegation from the existing manager. If
confirmation is not received, further consultation may be required until a satisfactory
resolution is achieved.

3. All parties involved negotiate and consummate appropriate ccTLD-ICANN
agreements. This requirement is in line with ICANN's commitment to the US
government that it will develop appropriate relationships with entities involved in the
Internet's operation, including ccTLD managers.

B. Redelegation Models

Attempts were made to exhaust all available information on the redelegations made by
IANA. However, due to lack of materials, the discussion below is limited to those that IANA
has deemed to be particularly noteworthy, reports of which are available online.66

Uncontested Redelegations

These redelegation proceedings are characterized by a smooth transition between the old
and new delegees, as a result of the cooperation of the old delegee in the process. As shown in
the summary of the uncontested redelegation proceedings below, the IANA also requires the
support of the government and the local Internet community to the new delegee, before any
request for redelegation is granted.67

Country Code Name Nature of Reason for Redelegation ICANN
Organizatio Agreement
n
Tokelau .tk Telecommunication Government (1) mutual agreement of None.

66
http://www.iana.org/reports/cctld-reports.
67
Ibid.



s Corporation of corporation old and new delegees
Tokelau (Teletok) (2) support of government
(3) support from local
internet community
Iraq .iq National Government (1) support of government None.
Communications Agency (2) former delegee did not
and Media promote the use of the
Commission of domain or serve the
Iraq interests of interest users in
Iraq
Kazakhstan .kz Kazakhstan Non-profit68 (1) mutual agreement of None.
Association of IT organization old and new delegees
Companies (2) support of government
Falkland .fk Falkland Islands Government (1) mutual agreement of None.
Islands Development agency old and new delegees
Corporation (2) support of government
internet community
Faroe .fo Fo Council Government (1) mutual agreement of None.
Islands old and new delegees
(2) support of government
internet community
South .za .za Domain Name Non-profit (1) mutual agreement of None.
Africa Authority corporation old and new delegees
internet community
Libya .ly General Post and Government (1) support of government None.
Telecommunication agency (2) support from local
Company internet community
Spain .es RED.ES Government (1) mutual agreement of None.
old and new delegees
internet community
Nigeria .ng NITDA Government (1) mutual agreement of MOU.
agency old and new delegees
internet community
French .tf AFNIC Non-profit69 (1) mutual agreement of Agreed to
Southern old and new delegees enter into
Territories (2) support of government Sponsorship

68
Composed of 32 companies engaged in software, telecommunications, internet service, system
integrators and related sectors.



(3) support from local Agreement
internet community
Palestine .ps Government Government (1) mutual agreement of MOU
Computer Center agency old and new delegees
internet community
Haiti .ht Consortium - not clear - (1) mutual agreement of None.
FDS/RDDH old and new delegees
internet community
Canada .ca Canadian Internet Non-profit (1) mutual agreement of None.
Registration corporation old and new delegees
Authority (CIRA) (2) support of government
internet community
Australia .au .au Domain Non-profit (1) mutual agreement of Sponsorship
Administration corporation old and new delegees Agreement
(AuDA) (2) support of government
internet community
Japan .jp Japan Registry Private (1) mutual agreement of Sponsorship
Service Co., Ltd. corporation old and new delegees Agreement
(JPRS) (2) support of government
internet community
Burundi .bi Centre National - not clear - (1) mutual agreement of MOU
de l’Informatique old and new delegees
(CNI) (2) support of government
internet community
Lao .la Lao National Government (1) mutual agreement of MOU
People’s Internet old and new delegees
Democratic Committee (2) support of government
Republic (LANIC)
Sudan .sd Sudan Internet Non-profit (1) mutual agreement of Sponsorship
Society society70 old and new delegees Agreement
internet community

69
Created by the French National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control and the French
government, represented by the Ministries of Telecommunications, Industry and Research.
70
The Sudan Internet Society is a non-profit, open membership society formally registered in Sudan.
According to its stated mission, the organization " is dedicated to identifying and surfacing the potential
effective and efficient applications of the Internet throughout the Sudanese community. It is to provide
support and information on all Internet related-issues in Sudan to enable individuals, businesses,



Afghanista .af Ministry of Government (1) mutual agreement of MOU
n Communications old and new delegees
Taiwan .tw Taiwan Network Non-profit (1) mutual agreement of Sponsorship
Information organization old and new delegees Agreement
Center (TWNIC) (2) support of government
internet community
Tajikistan .tj Information Independent (1) mutual agreement of Sponsorship
Technical Center body old and new administrative Agreement
(ITC) contact
internet community
Palau .pw Micronesia Independent (1) mutual agreement of Agreed to
Investment & body old and new delegees enter into
Development (2) support of government Sponsorship
Corporation (3) support from local Agreement
(MIDCORP) internet community
Cayman .ky Information and Non- (1) support of government None.
Islands Communications government
Technology organization
Authority (ICTA)
Malawi .mw Malawi Government (1) mutual agreement of MOU
Sustainable old and new delegees
Development (2) support of government
Network (3) support from local
Programme internet community
(Malawi SDNP)

Palau
The latest report of a negotiated redelegation pertains to the .PW domain of Palau.

In May 1997, the .PW ccTLD was delegated by Dr. Postel to Rakel Kamigaki of
PW Domain Registry as administrative contact, and Hostmaster of NetNames as the
technical contact.

In late 2002, ICANN received an expression of interest to re-delegate the .PW
ccTLD to the Micronesia Investment & Development Corporation ("MIDCORP"). The
request was duly supported by the Palau government. Both managers also expressed
support for the request.

professionals, and organizations achieve their goals more effectively." Sudan Internet Society currently
has more than 500 individual members.



As a consequence of the negotiated request, ICANN and MIDCORP were able to
execute the appropriate agreement for the re-delegation of the .PW domain on June 2003,
only a few months after the initial request was filed.

The report further noted that by migrating the delegation of the ccTLD from the
responsibility of an individual acting under informal understandings with the IANA to a
more formal, legally enforceable set of arrangements among a delegee organization, the
relevant government, and ICANN, the re-delegation will promote service to the local
Internet community and will help assure continued Internet interoperability through the
global technical coordination that ICANN was created to provide.

Contested Redelegations

Due to the resistance expected from the current ccTLD Administrator in the Philippines,
a more detailed discussion on the contested redelegations is set forth below.

Kenya
The .ke ccTLD registry was originally delegated in 1993 by IANA to Dr. Shem J.
Ochuodho of Kenya, as Administrative contact, and Randy Bush of the United States, as
the technical contact.

In December 2002, the ccTLD registry was redelegated to the Kenya Network
Information Center, Limited (KENIC), a community based, participatory, non-
government and non-profit organization composed of Kenyan Internet stakeholders
(telecommunications providers, internet associations, information society, education
network, government agencies, among others)

The request for redelegation was written by KENIC, and was supported with a
letter from Kenya’s Secretary of Ministry of Transport and Communications expressing
Kenyan government’s recognition of KENIC. The main reason for the request for
redelegation was Dr. Ochuodho’s (a) unresponsiveness to the needs of the local internet
community; and (b) his failure to engage in dialogue with the Kenyan internet
community.

Despite objections from Dr. Ochuodho, IANA granted the request for
redelegation on the following grounds: (a) Dr. Ochuodho’s failure to respond to Kenyan
internet community; (b) Dr. Ochuodho’s failure to respond to IANA’s inquiries; (c)
overwhelming support for KENIC from internet stakeholders; (d) government support,
(e) undertaking by KENIC to comply with GAC principles.

Pitcairn Island
Pitcairn Island is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom located in the South
Pacific. It has a total population consisting of approximately 50 descendants of the
Bounty mutineers and their Tahitian wives. Local government of Pitcairn Island consists
of an Island Council elected mostly by the inhabitants of the island (with a few appointed
members) and an elected Island Magistrate and Chairman of the Island Council. The UK



Government appoints a Governor of the territory and a Commissioner responsible for
liaison between the Governor and the Island Council.
Pitcairn Island's telephone service consists of a local party-line telephone system.
International telephone service is limited to Inmarsat service within a daily window. The
local system is not presently capable of transmitting e-mail. The island has no airstrip.
The economy consists of subsistence farming, fishing, and handicrafts made for sale to
passing ships.
The .pn ccTLD registry was originally delegated in 1997 by IANA to Tom
Christian as Administrative contact, and Nigel Roberts, as the technical contact. The
listed organization was Pitcairn Names (Orichalk Ltd). Mr. Christian is resident on
Pitcairn. Mr Roberts is a private computer consultant with an address in the Channel
Islands and is associated with Orichalk Ltd. The .pn top-level domain was used
predominantly for registration of domain names to entities not affiliated with the
territory, in exchange for a fee collected by Orichalk.

In February 2000, the ccTLD registry was redelegated to the Office of the
Governor of Pitcairn Island. The request for redelegation was written by the
Commissioner of Pitcairn Island, endorsed by the UK Government Minister for UK
Overseas Territories, with petition signed by 48 out of the 50 Pitcairn residents
(excluding Tom Christian and his wife). Allegedly, the original delegates were not
providing service to the community. Moreover, the Pitcairn Island Council felt that it
was important to ensure that the name “Pitcairn Island” and its abbreviated form should
serve the interest of Pitcairn Island and the Islanders rather than the interest of any
individual or organization not connected with the island.

Despite the initial objections raised by Mr. Christian, the IANA granted the
request for redelegation for the following reasons: (a) ccTLDs are intended to be
operated for the benefit of the internet community in the nation within which the country
code is associated; (b) government’s views, as expressed by Pitcairn Council and UK
Government minister; (c) the views of the persons concerned or affected by the transfer,
as shown by petition of Pitcairn residents.

Uzbekistan
In April 1995, the .uz ccTLD was delegated by Dr. Jon Postel initially to Alex
Vostrikov, a resident of Uzbekistan and thereafter, to Rustam Khamidov, as
administrative contact. Mr. Khamidov established a relationship with a company known
as Euracom, with its main office located in Berlin and the relevant operations in
Tashkent, through which he handled technical operations for the .uz ccTLD. Mr.
Vostrikov, initially the technical consultant, was thereafter replaced by Euracom.
Interestingly, Euracom was not based in Uzbekistan, nor was it engaged in the Internet
business.

In April 2003, the administration of the .uz ccTLD was redelegated by IANA to
the Computerization and Information Technology Developing Center (Uzinfocom), a
non-governmental organization formed in June 2002 with the encouragement of the
Uzbekistan Government, to carry out the realization of the Program of the Republic of
Uzbekistan on the development of computerization, information, and the Internet in the


FMA Paper on the .PH Domain Administration

FMA Paper on the .PH Domain Administration

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FMA Paper on the .PH Domain Administration

Similar to FMA Paper on the .PH Domain Administration (20)

More from Jim Ayson

More from Jim Ayson (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

FMA Paper on the .PH Domain Administration