Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

  The short answer to your question as far as we [INEGroup] is concerned,
is YES!

  However we don't support many of the "Controls" put upon the gTLD's
currently and challenged the ICANN BoD to show that a consensus
for those controls is legitimate or ever existed.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Leah,
>
> Should ccTLDs then be able to freely compete with gTLDs without having the
> same controls that are imposed on gTLDs?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:18 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
> 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
> >
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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