<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
Jeff,
What let you think that any of the listed can apply to many
if not all ccTLD ? All are related to the local customs.
- (1) Grace Periods are not relevant in countries
where you can have automated bank payment for service,
or where you cannot sell a domain name
- I do not see why (5) Uniform Deletion Periods should be uniform.
- (3) Escrow is a national matter, and an absolute no issue
for global policy (besides that it is better to have a backup
when you run a registry)
- (4) Dispute Resolution Policies depends on the naming charter,
and are totaly different from country to country
the same for (2) Transfers
> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.
Absolutely. The local aspect makes the difference.
Add language and legislation, you will see how strong it is.
Best regards,
Elisabeth
--
> From owner-ga@dnso.org Mon Sep 30 19:35 MET 2002
> Message-ID: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA81540E87@stntexch2.va.neustar.com>
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
> To: "'Elisabeth Porteneuve'" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>,
> DannyYounger@cs.com, barrister@chambers.gen.nz, cgomes@verisign.com,
> ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar. However, we
> also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
> body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> community. A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
> Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.
>
> As our contract with the Department of Commerce sets forth, we are required
> to look towards ICANN for global policy issues. It is in the ICANN arena
> that we often choose to participate from both a ccTLD and gTLD perspective
> because in our opinion some of these issues affect all global users equally.
> In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in exactly
> the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way. I understand
> that there are may ccTLDs that do not believe that there are any global
> policy issues. We do not believe that to be the case. If
>
> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.
>
>
>
>
> -----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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|