duh... the delegation/redelegation stuff seems to have begun: 
<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#2>

"CCNSO TO EXPLORE CCTLD DELEGATION AND RELATED POLICIES

At a Glance
The Council of the country code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) 
has approved a working group to advise the ccNSO Council on launching 
a policy development process on the delegation, re-delegation and 
retirement of ccTLDs

Recent Developments
The ccNSO revisited the need to review and update the current policy 
for the delegation, re-delegation and retirement of country code Top 
Level Domains at the Mexico City ICANN meeting. It concluded that as 
a first step, a working group needed to be established to better 
understand the scope and issues involved, and to ensure involvement 
of the GAC as they have an interest in the topic as well.

Next Steps
The ccNSO Secretariat will send out a call for members and observers 
to the working group. The ccNSO Council expects to appoint members to 
the working group at its Sydney meeting."


Defining and identifying the role of the local Internet community is 
an important issue for nom-commercial users/NCUC.

Adam


>Fouad, you should talk to Zahid Jamil, he seems to be involved in 
>efforts to reorganize .PK.
>
>ICANN doesn't manage ccTLDs. ICANN bylaws 
><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm> help to explain what 
>ICANN and the ccNSO do and don't do.
>
>But there was talk in Sydney of starting a review of the ccTLD 
>delegation/redelegation process, and could expect that to lead to 
>clarity about roles, involvement of the "local Internet community" 
>(and defining what that is) etc.  Think this will be an issue for 
>the ccNSO at their Seoul meeting.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>At 12:01 PM +0500 7/9/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>Distress with ICANN ccTLD Contracts for developing world regions:
>>
>>There is also another important issue that is dividing the
>>stakeholders in developing world countries. For example, in the case
>>of the ccTLD Manager in Pakistan for .pk is causing a lot of
>>discussion and dispute amongst the local industry between stakeholders
>>with claims regarding the mismanagement of the ccTLD. I have been
>>recording all the activities of the ccTLD since early this year.
>>
>>One root cause of this problem arises from the fact that ICANN does
>>not have a clear transparency model for the management of ccTLDs,
>>secondly, it has many agreements with ccTLD managers that it received
>>under its take over of IANA. If you look at the ccTLD map on the ICANN
>>website, you will see it only highlights the agreements it did itself
>>and not those done under contract by IANA. This is leaving the
>>stakeholders in a country like Pakistan distressed and confused.
>>
>>Issues at hand:
>>These issues have emerged over and over on the Telecom Grid of
>>Pakistan and Pakistan ICT Policy Network mailing lists sometimes
>>resulting in heavy flamewars between the debators and defendents. Only
>>last year in June 2008, PKNIC faced its worse downtime spanned over 7
>>days during which its 28000 plus domain names were on a total halt
>>inflicting heavy financial and intellectual property loss to the
>>domain owners and client organizations. All three key stakeholders of
>>Pakistan's E-Governance Infrastructure including the Government of
>>Pakistan, the Private Sectors including the Business Commerce and
>>Industry as well as Civil Society were amongst the effectees. Despite
>>this PKNIC walked away clean.
>>
>>What to do:
>>ICANN must be encouraged to revise its ccTLD management contracts,
>>review its registrar and registration policies for ccTLDs and create
>>space for Public Participation or atleast the stakeholders of the
>>ccTLD manager's region so that these ccTLDs may be scrutinized and
>>become transparent to stakeholders.
>>
>>On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Milton L Mueller<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>  An important policy issue that is bitterly dividing the industry 
>>>along somewhat difficult to predict lines is whether registrars 
>>>and registries should become more integrated. ICANN has sponsored 
>>>two economic studies. One, by Charles Rivers Associates 
>>>International (CRAI) proposes a very moderate relaxation of this 
>>>requirement. Another, by an economist named Carleton, proposes 
>>>getting rid of it altogether, and this is the position than seems 
>>>to be favored by ICANN staff.
>>>
>>>  Afilias and PIR have come out strongly opposed to the proposed 
>>>policy. You can bone up on some of the issues by looking at the 
>>>web site they prepared: 
>>>http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/blog
>>>
>>>  Ideally we should develop a position statement on this
>>>
>>>  Milton Mueller
>>>  Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>>  XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>>>  ------------------------------
>>>  Internet Governance Project:
>>>  http://internetgovernance.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Regards.
>>--------------------------
>>Fouad Bajwa
>>@skBajwa
>>Answering all your technology questions
>>http://www.askbajwa.com
>>http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa