RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 2 Sep 2001, at 9:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very different
> from the gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many
> of the restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations
> implementing policy over TLD registrations.
> 
> I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for those
> wanting a separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may
> really be quite different at this point in time, but even that could
> change in the future. If they want to play in the global Internet, I
> contend that they are more like gTLDs than different.  If they want to
> set up their own private network within their region of control, then
> they would not need access to the global Internet and then it could be
> justified that they are very different.

This is where we have fundamentally different views, Chuck.  I 
contend that the ccTLDs should not be ruled by anything that 
intereferes with their autonomous rights.  If they choose to market 
beyond their own region, they have that right, just as .US would 
have that right.  They are still "regionally" based and their policies 
should reflect those regional requirements and choices.  If a 
potential registrant is interested in a ccSLD, they should 
understand they are going to have to follow the rules of that ccTLD. 
 If a US or other country based registrar or contracted registry 
service offers registrations in a ccTLD, they should have to operate 
based on the country of origin's laws plus their own.  However, it 
should still not prevent the ccTLD from contracting out such 
services.  

As for other gTLDs controlled by the USG/ICANN, they can be 
controlled, I suppose.  Those companies willing to spend 
multimillions of dollars to pay for a five or so year contract to 
operate under those rules have made that choice.  What is truly 
wrong about it is just that.  Only major corporations have any hope 
of playing in that arena and have to be willing to put the screws to 
the public to do so.  Apparently they are not only willing, but 
anxious to do it.

Let's face it, Chuck.  The model isn't working - at least not for the 
greater community.  This list is totally insufficient in that the 
majority of the public is not even aware of it or ICANN.  They won't 
know they've been harmed until it's too late because there is not 
enough outreach to do any good.  ICANN was set up by the USG 
to avoid the APA and any meaningful participation by the public.  
So far it has succeeded.

The ccTLDs must be able to operate in their own right and not be 
controlled by ICANN.  Interaction is always good, as is 
cooperation.  Control is not good.  ICANN wants to control and 
rule.  It sets public social policy.  It wants to determine business 
models.  Lip service doesn't change that.  The bottom line for the 
corporations is the only thing that counts and they will do whatever 
they can to ensure that bottom line.  Guess who gets it in the 
neck.  Yep, individuals, users, small business, the public.  

I'm all for a free market.  I'm for as little governmental control as 
possible.  I'm also concerned for the rights of individuals and small 
business to operate without monopolistic control preventing those 
rights.  ICANN is a monopolistic, controlling pseudo government, 
trying to prevent any independent operations.  To do so would go 
against the special interests who are paying so dearly for that 
control.

Leah

> 
> Chuck     
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> > 
> 
> Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy
> is there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others
> signed away their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a
> contract to operate the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs
> have not done that to my knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on
> the IANA website it states that
> 
> country code domains were created to be used by each individual
> country as they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading
> because they were assigned to individuals or entities within those
> countries and not to the countries themselves.
> 
> It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be
> compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the
> ccTLD and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should. 
> As a ccTLD, .US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is
> being handled badly, IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red
> tape for who knows how long.  Whether it will become useful for the US
> public remains to be seen.
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: roomkin@law.miami.edu; ga@dnso.org; Roberto Gaetano
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > 
> > > Leah,
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that
> > > >would actually be in a much better position to determine what is
> > > >a valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just
> > > 
> > > Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> > > trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if
> > > there should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that
> > > some of the ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the
> > > interest of their respective governments, and that what should be
> > > a technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in
> > > a mini-GAC?
> > > 
> > 
> > As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My 
> > comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their
> > policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and many
> > areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some areas is a
> > liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is most
> > important for them.
> > 
> > > We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?
> > 
> > Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?
> > 
> > > 
> > > Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely
> > > answered. Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would
> > > have left instead of looking for a solution that will give them
> > > more influence on ICANN.
> > 
> > I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the
> > preferred action.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this
> > > >manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those organizations
> > > >as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply perform the
> > > >clerical entry of the information provided by the ccTLD
> > > >organizations.  IOW, cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the
> > > >TLDs they now control and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I
> > > >see no need for ICANN to micromanage them or force them to comply
> > > >with policies that could very well go against their cultures and
> > > >laws.
> > > >
> > > >Leah
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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@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