RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 21 May 2001, at 20:53, Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
> |> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 2:07 PM
> |> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
> |> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's
> 
> |> many of the ccTLDs are controlled by an individuals or very small
> |> numbers of people.  What is different about any other TLD holder?
> |> Charters determine how they are handled.  If there were a myriad of |>
> TLDs, this would not seem such an insurmountable issue.  ISPs have |>
> responsibilities to large numbers of end users, yet some are one-man |>
> shows.  It's not much different.  People rely greatly on their email |>
> addresses provided by these ISPs, as well as other things, including |>
> their connectivity for e-commerce and personal activities.  You are |>
> placing a heavier burden on a service provider than is called |> for,
> Dassa.
> 
> The issue of ccTLD's is a very valid one and I hope as a group we can come
> up with some constructive suggestions on policies that should be applied to
> them.
> 
> |> A TLD operator is responsible for providing a service and that will |>
> succeed or fail based on the reliability of service whether it |> is a
> large corporation or small enterprise.
> 
> One of the points I wish to get across is that we should be striving for a
> no-fail situation with regard to TLD's.  The importance of making sure any
> TLD remains viable is extremely important and we should have policies that
> reflect this.  I do not consider the failure of a TLD operator a small
> issue.

No one said it was a small issue.  What I said was that business 
succeed or fail all the time.  There should be in place a contingency for 
a failed enterprise to protect registrants.  It still will not stop a failure of 
a business for any number of reasons.  It is one of the issues to be 
addressed, isn't it.

> 
> |> You seem to be advocating governmental types of regulatory control for
> |> something that will not be a governmental function - at least as has |>
> been intended with the privatization of the Internet.  That seems to be |>
> the dilemma here.  It is to be governed or privatized?
> 
> I haven't heard of any privatisation although I have heard of
> internationalisation with respect to the Internet.  

You haven't?  That was the entire purpose of the Green and White 
Papers and is precisely the reason for establishing ICANN, a private 
non-profit corporation in California.

Once DoC divests itself of the root (and it wishes to do so whether 
stakeholders want it that way or not and without the APA governing that 
procedure) it will be totally privatized.

Privatisation brings
> about even more compartmentation of the people who will have control as it
> will result in those with the most money and commercial backing being able
> to gain the most control. 

Yup.  That's where it is now, except for control of root policy for the 
USG root.  There needs to be true market competition with registries 
which means the need for many TLDs. 

 I advocate internationalisation with the
> authority being in a body much like the UN but dealing solely with the
> Internet.  I realise that the operation of TLD's will continue to be with
> commercial entities but I wish to see their operations overseen by a
> responsible International body that will ensure the protection of the users
> and the continuence of any TLD despite any difficulties an operator may run
> into.  I wish to see strict policies in place for the management and
> function of all TLD's.  And I wish to see a truly International body doing
> that.  IMHO, it is best done by a non-profit orientated organisation with
> large amounts of input, support and investiture by the user base.  Although
> ICANN is not yet that type of organisation, it is the closest we have to
> such at the present time.  If the TLDA or another body can prove that it is
> more suitable, then I would gladly support it.
> 

And I disagree with that type of governance of something that is made 
up of private entities around the world.  Standards for cooperative efforts 
is one thing.  Governance is another.

TLDA does not endeavor to govern, Dassa.  Its endeavor is to bring 
those entities to the table to establish an environment for cooperation 
and by doing so, come up with operational standards that will benefit 
everyone.  While it would not dictate operations to members, it would 
be able to offer some standardization arrived at by those involved, that 
all TLD operations could strive for.  That brings stabilty.  It is also meant 
to be entire inclusionary - all TLDs - leaving none out who wish to 
participate.

Leah

> 
> |> Thank you for bringing up the fact that there is still information on
> the |> website that needs to be changed.  I will inform the webmaster and
> the |> rest of the board that the situation exists.
> 
> Always happy to be of assistance :)
> 
> 
> |> > It is noted the mission statement includes references to Root
> |> Managers.
> |>
> |> It mentions that the TLDA would act as liaison with root managers in |>
> the interests of collision-free choice....  That does not indicate ties any
> |> more than others act in the same manner with Congress, other |>
> companies, etc.  Dassa, please don't misconstrue things.  If I had a |>
> company that was dealing with other entities and employed an |>
> intermediary to negotiate or deal with those entities, it would not |>
> indicate my company had ties with those we were attempting to |> negotiate
> with.  If you like, consider it to be a lobbying |> effort on behalf of TLD
> holders with root managers - all root managers.
> 
> This distancing of TLD's from roots is interesting.  But back to the point,
> accepting what you say above does still convey the impression their will be
> a close association with the TLDA and root operations as indeed there has
> to be.  My initial comments were in response to you saying the TLDA has
> nothing to do with the roots.  I don't intend to labour the point.
> 
> |> Speaking for myself, Dassa, it is vitally important to me that
> |> registrants and users are protected.  That is why I remain active wrt to
> an IDNHC. |> It seems that both DN holders and TLD holders are in limbo. 
> Both are |> dependent on the other.  From my perspective as a TLD holder
> and a |> domain name holder, I can see where cooperation must exist.  There
> is |> a business consideration on the one hand, but I am determined to also
> |> protect registrants in any way possible. That is also my reason for |>
> becoming active with the TLDA.  I would like to think I could |> have a
> part in helping to foster the cooperation the mission statement speaks
> about.
> 
> Commendable.  I am also concerned to see users protected.
> 
> |>
> |> And there was no transfer, was there.  Again, it was inappropriate and
> |> was not considered.  The only possible consideration might have been |>
> to "hold" it until a manager could be found.  It did not happen because |>
> there was no mechanism by which we could do so fairly, so it was not |>
> done.  I can think of no more fair response than that.
> 
> I haven't made any comment on the actual decision of the TLDA in regard to
> this issue.  My point was that a TLD would be offered at all in such a
> manner.  To any other organisation.  I don't know anything about the TLD,
> for instance if there are any users on it.  However, the fact that a TLD
> would be offered and that a small number of people could decide on the fate
> of a TLD did raise concerns for me.  My point was not intended to be a
> direct reflection on the TLDA but more on the concept of TLD's being traded
> and moved from operator to operator without the input of users and the
> Internet community as a whole.
> 
> 
> |> Any business can be transferred, Dassa. Why is it so very
> |> different with a TLD?  If registrants are served, does it matter who
> serves |> them?  If a TLD is operated so that accessibilty is afforded its
> registrants and |> services provided, why should there be a barrier to the
> transfer? |> Operation viability is the issue, not the name of the holder.
> 
> That is the main difference.  Yes, these TLD's, other than those
> incorporated in the legacy root name space are private businesses and as
> such are not a true part of the Internet although they may be at some
> future date.  The Internet to me is public space that should not be
> segmented and fall under the control of individual entities.  A TLD on the
> Internet is to me, a part of the Internet name space that belongs to all
> users and as such it needs to be under special conditions of operation.
> 
> This may be a good legal issue for someone interested enough to tackle it.
> Current legal opinion appears to be that domain names can not be classed as
> property.  Are not TLD's in this same situation?  Are they not just one dot
> to the right of a domain name such as icann.org?  Can a TLD be classed as
> property where other fully qualified domain names are not?
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html