The governance of mutual rights and obligations of ICANN and the registries for ccTLDs on the example of the .pl (Poland), .lt (Lithuania) and other selected domain names.
MetadataShow full item record
The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is involved in the cooperation with Top Level Domain Registries, under which the latter are empowered to manage specific parts of the global system of Internet domain names. The function of Registry for the .pl ccTLD is performed by a research institute – the Research and Academic Computer Network, referred to as NASK (Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa) with its registered office in Warsaw. The function of the Registry for the .lt ccTLD is performed by the Kaunas University of Technology. The contractual relationship between ICANN and these Registries is not based on a written agreement, what makes a precise definition of the scope of competence assigned to the .pl and .lt. Registry is highly problematic in practice, because it would have to draw on a peculiar analogy to the content of written agreements concluded by ICANN with other entities, and on a thesis of the standardization of the content of legal relationships between ICANN and the Registries for ccTLDs. It seems, however, that this observation should not be linked with the existence on the part of ICANN contractor the right to perform the function of the specific domain Registry on the basis of exclusivity and the consequences arising from this fact, as the entitlement to perform the said function and correlated to it obligation of ICANN to respect this state of affairs is central to the legal relationship created between the said entities. In light of the assumption that the management of a ccTLD should be effected in the interest of the community of the country (autonomous area, a territory) a given domain pertains to, it is desirable for the content of the contractual relationship underlying the administration of .pl and .lt domain names to be strictly defined, unambiguous and publicly available to the community members. Establishing in detail and describing the content of such an obligation relationship is currently impossible, and an attempt at its reconstruction made in this article as based on the assumptions and the texts of the agreements on the administration of other ccTLDs seems to be a stopgap measure, running a high risk of error.
- Straipsniai / Articles