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

[Leah Gallegos <jandl@jandl.com>]

On Monday 30 September 2002 09:33 pm, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> Just let me clarify something for the record.  I never said that there
> would be supreme body that would make global policies "binding" on all of
> the ccTLDs.  My posting merely was meant to say that ICANN would be a good
> forum to discuss these issues and come to some sort of best practices for
> global policy matters.
>
>
> As a representative of a ccTLD, I certainly understand there are
> differences in National Laws that would make having certain uniform
> policies binding on all ccTLDs.  But lets not use the shield of local
> law/local culture for every single policy issue.  After all, maybe someone
> can educate me here, but I am aware of no law/cultural issue that would
> prohibit the
> implementation of a Redemption Grace Period (as one example).  I admit I
> could be wrong and I am willing to listen.
>
>
> Yes, there are certain issues where local law can come into effect (i.e.,
> trademark law, privacy, etc.).  But it seems to me that often times ccTLDs
> hide behind that shield to basically state that there can never be any
> global policy issues.  After all, when local law/culture is not implicated,
> what is the harm in trying to come together, building consensus and
> standardizing some policy issues for the global internet community (whether
> it is a ccTLD or a gTLD).

Please enlighten me.  When has there ever been "consensus" within the ICANN 
framework other than among the board members, who are led by staff?  If you 
are referring to "community consensus," sadly it is always ignored.

I think the ccTLDs have made it fairly clear that they do not accept the 
global policy rationale and that they have reached consensus on that point.  
If there is to be a consideration for consensus, the argument should be 
ended.

Leah

--
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