[ga-full] RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 08:02 AM 3/27/00 -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:

I agree with you, but it won't work anymore. The problem is that the term 
"gTLD" was created by the IAHC to specifically define the shared-TLD 
environment. Some people have the term "gTLD" firmly associated with 
sharing and registrars. This excludes a number of TLDs (as Elisabeth points 
out).

I don't think redefining gTLDs as shared AND non-shared is a battle worth 
fighting over, especially if there are constituencies to recognize the 
registries/TLDs which aren't shared, or might be a mixture or shared and 
non-shared. Thus the request for rTLD and iTLD constituencies.

Keep it understandable...

>The only problem I have with this is the requirement that gTLDs be shared. I
>disagree. A gTLD des not have to be shared, by multiple registrars.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon
> > Higgs
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:34 AM
> > To: ga@dnso.org; Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
> >
> >
> > At 10:02 AM 3/25/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >I believe we have three constituencies with ex definitio restrictly
> > >defined membership (and certainly restricted mailing lists):
> > >    - ccTLDs are managers of current ccTLD registries
> > (whereas the ccTLDs
> > >      Registry Managers list is restricted to 243 members as provided
> > >      by the publicly open IANA whois database, which are
> > the only ones
> > >      allowed to vote, the ccTLDs mailing list is much
> > larger -- roughly
> > >      double size -- and includes more than one contact per
> > >      country/territory, as well as regional secretariat's staff)
> > >    - gTLDs are managers of current gTLD registries (NSI)
> >
> > I'm confused by the non-NSI registries not being represented
> > in Elizabeth's
> > list:
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/constituency/gtld/gtld.html
> >
> > In the the above URL, there are Open generic TLDs (.COM,
> > .NET, .ORG) and
> > Restricted generic TLDs (.GOV, .MIL, .EDU, .INT) - all of which are
> > described as gTLDs. There is a need for an rTLD constituency for the
> > restricted TLDs since they cannot be accurately described as
> > generic or
> > gTLDs. Generic describes a TLD which can be shared by
> > multiple registrars,
> > whereas Restricted describes a requirement for close-control
> > by a single
> > registry.
> >
> > >    - Registrars are, AFAIK, limited to accredited by ICANN
> > Registrars
> > >      for gTLDs
> > >The remaining four (ISPCP, IP, NCDNH and Business) have charters
> > >and published rules.
> >
> > I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be
> > recognized,
> > and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
> > contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
> > TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are
> > named on the
> > iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
> > iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> > registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI
> > (currently no
> > competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
> >
> > >NB. Two (.edu, .int) of four "forgotten" TLDs are missing withing
> > >     the DNSO GA, and it would be better to have them inside
> > >     (the remining two are .gov and .mil).
> >
> > rTLDs ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > --
> > ###
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html