A serious error in the CICT Guidelines

February 14, 2005

Lawrence’s story appears here.

I’m a bit disappointed that Computerworld seems to have gotten a key point wrong:

DotPH was previously given until Jan. 15 to decide whether it will continue to be the administrator of the PH country code top-level domain name or limit its functions to just that of a registry. As registry, DotPH will become the central repository of PH domain names.

Despite a week’s extension after the Jan.15 deadline lapsed, DotPH has yet to officially communicate its decision to the Commission on Information and Communication Technology (CICT).

Actually, the guidelines are very confusing, and perhaps that’s one reason why Lawrence has gotten this point wrong. This is how this key provision is actually written in the guidelines (Article XII, Section 2):

Within 3 months [..] the incumbent Administrator should formally notify the CICT whether it will act as an Administrator or Registrar, but not both. It shall also submit to the CICT a plan to divest itself of either the operations of Registry or its Registrar operations.

The Administrator is defined in Article I of the Guidelines as:
the duly incorporated or organized entity that manages the ccTLD Registry, which the CICT has previously designated as such, and which ICANN has chosen to be the delegee for the ccTLD on behalf of the local and global Internet Community.

So let’s take it step by step. Who are the Guidelines defining as the Administrator?

Is it DotPH? Let’s see. What entity manages the Registry? It’s DotPH. Ok, has CICT previously designated DotPH as such? No. Uh-oh. Now who has ICANN chosen as the delegee? Without a doubt, it’s PHDF as designated here.

So at this point - it’s unclear whom the Guidelines are referring to as the Administrator. Is it DotPH or PHDF? Technically, one could conclude at this point that the Guidelines are unworkable. But let’s assume it’s PHDF, as ICANN refers to it as the “administrative contact” for the ccTLD.

PHDF now has to submit a plan to the CICT to divest itself of the operations of the Registry or Registrar. Ok - that’s easy, because PHDF has never had any equity in DotPH, and has never operated as a Registrar or Registry!

So is that it? Are we done? Have we complied with the Guidelines, since the Administrator has already divested itself of its Registrar and Registry operations?

According to Mr. Pena - No! (No surprise there). Because for Mr. Pena to allow this, would be to admit that the Guidelines have a critical - if not fatal - defect.

This is what I’ve been referring to when I say that the Guidelines are impossible to comply with in my letter to Computerworld and Inquirer. I’ve said as much to Ver Pena in a phone conversation, on this blog, in a letter to the Inqurier, and in a second letter to ComputerWorld. So it’s a bit puzzling to me when I hear Mr. Pena continuing to say that we have yet to communicate our decision to the CICT.

Already, I can see Mr. Pena distancing himself from this mess by passing the buck to Dondi Mapa, and continuing to claim that DotPH has yet to reply as to its “choice”. The only way out of this, and I mean this in all sincerity - is for the Mr. Pena to step back and think first about what it is he is trying to accomplish. Are you trying to lower the retail price of domains? Are there any DotPH policies you would like to change? What are your concerns? What problems are you trying to fix?

I know this sounds like a broken record [1][2][3][4][5], but surely you must have some REAL problems with the way the PH Domain is run, otherwise you would not have bothered writing the Guidelines, yes? If so, then let’s have it - and let’s start working on fixing these problems. And if you don’t - then please simply ask the general public - “who here has problems with DotPH? Let them speak out now - or forever hold their peace”. It’s really that simple.