RE: [cctld-discuss] Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD RegistryConstituency

[Bernard Turcotte <turcotte@cira.ca>]

All,

Know him, usually reasonable.

Will talk with him.

B.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctld-discuss-admin@wwtld.org
[mailto:cctld-discuss-admin@wwtld.org]
> On Behalf Of Peter Dengate Thrush
> Sent: September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> Subject: [cctld-discuss] Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry
> Constituency
> 
> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> trims
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going
to
> regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch.
with
> reality.
> 
> There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these
which
> necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all
operational
> requirements within the local law.
> 
> Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
> people
> believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that
its an
> ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on
escrow is
> quite misguided.
> 
> Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
> 
> If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> definition of "well".
> 
> If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think
of
> that -that is its choice.
> 
> It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN
merely
> manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> distinction from the gtlds.
> 
> It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of
domain
> names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving
complaints
> of
> cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the
technical
> stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> because others were registering their brands as domain names?
> 
> Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or
they
> don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything
to do
> with it.
> 
> Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this
kind
> of
> foolishness is.
> 
> The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these
issues
> can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
> 
> Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever
wonder
> why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
Netherlands,
> all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
> list?
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> ccAdcom Meeting Chair
> 
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cctld-discuss mailing list
> cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> http://www.wwtld.org/mailman/listinfo/cctld-discuss

--
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