RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

100% agree with you, Half!
I wish only to add that SO's rigid form is absurd. ccTLD belongs to:

ASO   as allocating IP addresses
nicSO as Local Internet Community animators
DNSO as TLD Registry
PSO   as several of them have interesting development projects
@large to dialog withe international users

as also are BC, NonComm, IPC, Internet Users, SMEs ....

Let try to get the ICANN real ...
Jefsey

PS. I am really glad about your openess about openTLDs.

On 06:52 04/09/01, Alf Hansen said:
>Well said, Elisabeth.
>
>There is no "fight" between gTLDs and ccTLDs. Let the Registrants choose the
>addresss space they want to be in. The ccTLD managers are trying to do the
>"best" for their local Internet communities, most of them on an
>non-commercial basis, with some kind of relation with their local
>governments.
>
>Among ccTLDs there is a consept of "Best Practice" built on the belief that
>the best practice will serve the interests of the local internet communitiy
>as a whole (not neccessarily serving the intersts of the ccTLDs themselves
>or the Governments only). For ccTLD managers ICANN is a "partner" because
>ICANN contributes to stability in a global open Internet, which is extremely
>important for the local Internet community.
>
>I don't mind if there are thousands of new gTLDs, as long as Internet
>stability is preserved. Let the Registrants choose where they feel they
>belong in the address space. If they feel at home with local law under a
>country code, they will register their names with ccTLDs. If they are
>comfortable in a g-name space, they will choose a gTLD with the best suited
>policy and law.
>
>In any case DNS has to work in a globally interconnected Internet. The gTLDs
>and the other constituencies in the current DNSO may have different
>motivations for SUPPORTING ICANN than the ccTLDs. Therefore a separate ccTLD
>SUPPORT ORGANISATION may be a good thing, also for ICANN.
>
>Best regards,
>Alf H
>.NO
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> > Porteneuve
> > Sent: 2. september 2001 19:24
> > To: cgomes@verisign.com; ga@dnso.org; jandl@jandl.com
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The ccTLDs represent Local Internet Communities, and contrary to the
> > gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries do not operate under the US law
> > and jurisdiction, but under national law and jurisdiction.
> >
> > This is the main and most important reason.
> >
> > The ccTLD form the genuine global worldwide network, using all languages,
> > implemented in all countries, operating a large spectra of
> > business models.
> >
> > Note that ccTLD has been very positive to ICANN creation, sending
> > money and expecting the real international body for all Registries.
> > Since two years the ccTLD has been contributing 35% of ICANN budget,
> > 1.5 million US dollars, all from foreign countries !
> > During the same two years ICANN Staff spent all their time on contracts
> > with gTLD registries and registrars.
> >
> > I agree with you Chuck: the ccTLD are certainly not really very
> > different from gTLD, they demand equal considerations within ICANN.
> >
> > The real stability of global Internet depends on all components,
> > not only 3+7=10 gTLD, but also 242 ccTLD.
> >
> > Elisabeth
> > --
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From owner-ga@dnso.org Sun Sep  2 15:52 MET 2001
> > Message-ID:
> > <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C3EDEC@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> > To: "'jandl@jandl.com'" <jandl@jandl.com>, ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> > Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:40:50 -0400
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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@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@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