New ccTLDs to Be Added by France?
June 27th, 2008
AFNIC, the French registration authority, has seven “colonial” ccTLDs that they keep dark and non-functional (see the full list below, extracted from an AFNIC document). At least four of these seven functioned at one point before being shut down under pressure from France. Their absence from the active Internet effectively denies their inhabitants any separate identity.
Then, in September 2007, the ISO-3166-1 list, from which the ccTLD codes are drawn, was shuffled around, adding two new potential French ccTLDs, .BL (St. Bartholomew) and .MF (St. Martin - French side) [link to PDF]. These two are for the moment also dark, bringing the dark total to nine. (Reunion, the tenth, does have registration activity.)
There are some very good people at AFNIC, but I’m not a fan of French ccTLD policies, as I made clear as a panelist at the recent ICANN session on new TLDs, as well as in previous posts.
During the discussion, I made the point that new gTLDs are an experiment, and that in order for an experiment to be valid, there must be room for failure. Bertrand de la Chapelle, the GAC representative from France, in the audience, stood up and said:
And you really believe it is the best service we can make to the security and stability of the Internet to allow the framework to have some that fail, some that don’t fail? I don’t believe so.
I have seen every form of outrage at ICANN, especially from the GAC, so I should not have been surprised. But I admit, this made my blood boil.
The French colonial ccTLDs are failures, by definition. They don’t work at all. Four of them (GF, .MQ, .GP, and .PM) were wrested from local operators and then turned off. In some form or another, they are all officially part of France “outre-mer” (overseas France).
The status of the native people of French overseas territories is unclear, but their rights are clearly inferior to those of French citizens on the mainland. For example, France does its nuclear testing there, and reserves the right to continue atmospheric nuclear tests. And while the European French can travel there, the residents may not be allowed to travel freely: “…les Territoires d’Outre Mer ne font pas partie du Territoire européen de la République française. Aussi le Traité de Rôme et le Traité de Maastricht ainsi que le principe de libre circulation qui en découle ne sont pas applicables.” So while a claim that these territories are “France” may be true from the point of view of military control, the population lack just a few of the rights that the mainland French enjoy. Just a few itty-bitty little rights, like self-determination.
Skepticism, therefore, may not be unwarranted in response to claims that these ccTLDs are administered for the benefit of the local Internet community, as per RFC 1591, the founding document concerning the responsibilities of TLD operators, or even according to IPC 1, ICANN’s early attempt to supplant RFC 1591.
But good news! In an apparent about-face, AFNIC has started an consultative session, which is considering under which conditions (if any) the ccTLDs of these territories may be started up. I can only speculate on their intentions. The consultation is “open,” meaning that anyone can give their opinion. The deadline for comments, unfortunately, was June 24, and I found out only the day before the deadline, in the middle of the ICANN session, that it existed.
Voilà the goal of the consultation:
L’objectif de cette consultation est de recueillir l’avis de l’ensemble des acteurs de la communauté Internet afin de contribuer à définir les modalités de gestion des domaines internet concernés par l’article L.45 du code des postes et des télécommunications (CPCE) et par son décret d’application 2007-162 :
« .fr » France ;
« .gf » Guyane Française ; « .gp » Guadeloupe ; « .mq » Martinique, « .re » Réunion
« .pm » Saint Pierre et Miquelon ; « .wf » Wallis et Futuna ; « .yt » Mayotte ;
« .tf » Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises ;
ainsi que les futurs domaines « .bl » Saint Barthelemy et « .mf » Saint Martin.
[Quick translation - The goal of this consultation is to collect the advice of Internet participants in order to contribute to defining the manner of managing Internet domains etc. etc. ]
I’ve spent more time than my high-two-figure salary can justify poking around the AFNIC and other related sites, but I never before came across this. Why not? Here’s the URL in full:
http://www.telecom.gouv.fr/rubriques-menu/organisation-du-secteur/
textes-reglementaires/consultations-appels-candidatures/
consultations-ouvertes/modalites-gestion-du-domaine-
internet–dot-fr-extensions-outre-mer-1652.html
Clearly the French telecoms department does not like type-in traffic. Significantly, it’s not on the AFNIC site, nor can I find a link there.
So it appears that for the first time the French authorities are considering opening these seven-plus-two ccTLDs. (It would not be accurate to say that the TLDs had not been considered before at all, since at least four were shut down, with no consultation whatever.) Even a well-hidden consultative process, though very late and of uncertain consequence, is to be applauded. Their action may spur the U.S. (.UM) and Norwegian (.BV, .SJ) authorities to follow suit and allow their captive ccTLDs to open up as well.
I can’t help but wonder, however, about the September 2007 flurry of activity on the part of the ISO, which concerned French territories exclusively. Apart from the two new ccTLDs, various French territories were shuffled from one ISO code to another. The charitable view is that France wants to contribute more money to ICANN, and therefore has contrived to add two new TLDs, that they might thereby receive two additional invoices, thus adding to their contributions while remaining nearly anonymous, and that in so doing they might escape any insinuation that their actions were less than purely charitable. That’s possible…. Or, a cynic might say that they just want two more votes on the CCNSO. Or it may have nothing at all to do with domain names.
Whatever the reason, my congratulations to the French authorities for taking some baby steps, at last.
But in the future I hope to be spared speeches about the dangers of allowing TLDs to fail.
Note: the flags above are, in order, the unofficial flags of Martinique, St. Pierre and Miquelon, French Polynesia, Mayotte, and Guadeloupe. Officially, there is only one flag, the tricolor of France.
Tags: ICANN, AFNIC, Bernard de la Chapelle, new gTLDs, new TLDs, GAC, Government Advisory Committee, French Polynesia, French Guyana, Mayotte, St. Martin, St. Pierre and Miquelon, St. Bartholomew, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Bouvet Island, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, .PF, .GF, .YT, .MF, .PM, .BL, .TF, .WF, .BV, .SJ, .UM, ISO-3166, RFC 1591, ICANN ICP1
Hi Antony,
Thanks for this post. Would you authorize me to translate and publish it on my blog, where I write quite often about DNs?
Jean-Marie
Jean-Marie Le Ray | June 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Jean-Marie,
Of course. Please include a link back.
Antony
Antony | June 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Antony,
For sure! Thanks, I’ll let you know when it’ll be ready.
Jean-Marie
Jean-Marie Le Ray | June 27th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
There’s a slight wiff of French Bashing in your article. Your understanding of rights of citizens from DOM, COM & ROM is incomplete - Those territories are PTOM, and not Schengen, true but that is not only the case for French territories, but also Danish territories like the Faroe Islands and Greenland and British islands and Dutch territories.
Many territories like St Pierre & Miquelon have very specific statues that provides autonomy on certain domains such as taxation and immigration.
Rights like self-determination ? The Republic is one and indivisible, meaning no part of the Republic can be traded off, abandoned as well - it works both ways. Now what about Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico ?
PS, there is no circumflex accent on Rome in French.
Miquelon | June 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hi Miquelon,
I’m certainly not saying that France is any better or worse than the U.K., Denmark, Netherlands etc. when it comes to how they deal with ex-colonies and the rights of people there. The sudden hypocrisy of the British with regard to the freedom to emigrate to the U.K. from Hong Kong is a great example. But all of the British possessions, as well as the Danish ones, have top-level domains that function, most entirely independently. Furthermore, neither the Danes nor the British have scolded me about failed TLDs.
With regard to the U.S. possessions you mention, the same applies. U.S. imperial behavior is well-known and heavily criticized. But these territories all have independent — and operational — ccTLDs.
With regard to circumflex, it’s a direct quote.
Do you know what happened with the .PM ccTLD? I corresponded regularly with the old administrative contact before he went suddenly radio-silent, followed some weeks later by the disappearance of the registry.
Antony | June 28th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Hey Antony, sorry if I came of a little sensitive in my previous post.
The .pm ccTLD has been pretty much locked in the hands of the national government for the last number of years, much to the frustration of many locals.
I think the issue should be wrestled away from the national government by the local governance, but there is little interest in the project at this point.
Miquelon | June 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Something was overlooked. Martinique and Guadeloupe are not territories of France. They are regions and departments. Also they are not part of the TOM mentioned earlier, they are DOM (departments d’Outre Mer)
Martinique is not the rough equivalents of Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
Martinique is the French equivalent of Hawaii or Alaska. The people of Martinique are full French and European citizens and vote for the French president and members of the European Union. They carry a French passport that has on it’s cover also European Union.
I do support having the domain .mq but at the same time you are offering support for .hawaii and .alabama!
Steve | June 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi Steve,
If Hawaii and Alabama (did you mean Alaska?) were on the IANA list of ccTLDs, you can be sure I would support a TLD for each of them. But they are not, nor are any of the interior departements of France (e.g., Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, etc.) — only overseas territories merit this distinction. Furthermore, many territories of the U.K. are a full part of the United Kingdom (Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey), yet have functioning independent TLDs.
Antony | June 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
A side comment is that Martinique has not been a territory longer that Alaska and Hawaii. Martinique stopped being a territory in 1946. Alaska and Hawaii were territories for another 2 years.
Steve | June 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
quotation
“I’ve spent more time than my high-two-figure salary can justify poking around the AFNIC and other related sites, but I never before came across this.”
link :
http://www.afnic.fr/actu/nouvelles/general/CP20080428
posted on afnic website on April 28th, 3 days after the consultation was launched. And by the way, it has never been an AFNIC consultation, but a Governmental one.
And by the way also, if you go to the AFNIC webpage in english version, you’ll find that it’s the second press release available on the left of your screen
pierre | June 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Pierre — you are right, there it is. It never occurred to me to look at the English site, since the entire consultation is in French.
Antony | June 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
It looks like the only one who got away from the control of AFNIC is the French Polynesia, where the local telecom runs .pf (wonder if nuculear.pf is still available :D).
As for your reference to other countries’ territories, The Farøe islands and Greenland run their own tlds just fine without interference from Denmark.
As for the Norwegian territories and .UM, I think you need to make an important distinction: although there is people living in the Svalbard (not many, but still), Bouvet Islands is uninhabited, just like the US Minor Islands (.UM is my favourite joke… even birdcrap has its own TLD).
The reason why AFNIC’s behaviour (and Norid’s when it comes to .SJ) is unacceptable is that they deprive local communities of their own TLD for no reasons, which is completely contrary to the whole idea of ccTLDs to begin with.
Furthermore, a few months ago some people at USMIR practically ran a scam on a bunch of registrars and their customers for a lot of money, promising they had the permission of ICANN to run the Registry. However, .UM is now disabled, and I think it is fair for the US government to want to have some kind of control on a ccTLD that has no local internet community to serve.
Francesco | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Hi Antony,
Here is the AFNIC’s answer to the consultation
http://www.afnic.fr/actu/nouvelles/general/CP20080704
Jean-Marie
Jean-Marie Le Ray | July 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Re; .UM - Francesco has it wrong. USMIR never claimed ICANN permission. They received DoC authorization to start taking registrations. USMIR staff had -always- run the registry. Based on inaccurate ICANN reports, new staff @ NTIA directed ICANN to remove the DNS entries and delist the whois data.
This action is being appealed.
bill manning | July 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Bill, I apologize if my comment might sound a bit harsh.
However, you will understand the frustration and the confusion around whether the reopening of the .UM Registry was properly authorized (and by whom) when the last official record on this TLD is the decision of the ICANN Board to revoke it in jan 07.
(see http://icann.org/minutes/minutes-17jan07.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.um)
Francesco | July 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm