RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Elisabeth,

I am sure you know I am not advocating that ccTLDs should use English to
communicate with their constituencies.

Moreover, to the extent that a ccTLD is restricted to a narrow geographical
region (e.g., country), I am not suggesting that such a ccTLD would benefit
from the same constituency structure as in the current DNSO.  But as you
well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not restricted to their own
geographical region; they function essentially like gTLD registries on a
global basis.  In those cases, I see little difference between ccTLDs and
gTLDs because users expand beyond local boarders and associated policy
issues are the pretty much the same.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: DannyYounger@cs.com; barrister@chambers.gen.nz; 
> cgomes@verisign.com;
> ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> telcos, ISP and others.
> We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
> 
> The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
> to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
> [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency 
> structure should
> be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
> suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
> 
> I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between 
> ccTLD and gTLD.
> The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
> .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
> Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
> an US flag up front.
> 
> Amicalement,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
> 
> > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't 
> "benefit" from the
> > input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not 
> because those
> > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> > 
> > Chuck  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > To: barrister@chambers.gen.nz; ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Peter,
> > > 
> > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > > you have asked, 
> > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > > registrars to sit 
> > > around the table with their user community?"
> > > 
> > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > > mechanism by which 
> > > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > > proposed ccSO?  
> > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > > some structural 
> > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > > 
> > > best regards,
> > > Danny
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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