Re: [ga] ccTLD Rights

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear All,

These are very helpful exchanges in the area of understanding misconceptions about
the operations of ccTLDs. Many misconceptions are not accidents.  We found several
accredited Registrar sights intentionally changed the term "generic" to "Global"
in an effort to make it appear that the ccTLDs were not Global.

Williams point on Trademarks is well spoken and consistent with maintaining
Cultural Integrity and National Security, as long as it does not violate treaties,
but those are really incorporated into the law.  I would say that RFC 1591 leans
more to the premise that domain names would not be governed by anything but
existing law.

I believe that our disregard for privacy in the whois databases is a uniquely
American philosophy that has wormed its way into the international setting.

Sincerely,
Eric

"William X. Walsh" wrote:


> Hello Stefan,
>
> Thursday, June 28, 2001, 6:06:39 AM, Stefan Probst wrote:
>
> > Actually no. The registry is only carrying out decisions of the relevant
> > ministries.
>
> Well, in this case, General Department of Posts and Telecommunications
> of Vietnam IS the registry.  They may have operations contracted out,
> but when I say registry, I mean the registered point of authority with
> IANA who was delegated the domain.
>
> >>They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
> >>rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
> >>registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
> >>supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.
>
> > I don't agree, since jurisdictions in most developing countries would
> > probably be unable to resolve any problems, because there are no laws to
> > cover those issues. Besides that lots of other problems.
>
> I don't consider this a problem.  A very large number of ccTLDs have
> no dispute policy except to abide by court rulings, and many of them
> have about the same or less internet aware/trademark law than Vietnam
> does, I'm sure.  If they have no laws, then there can be no violations
> of the law that warrant a need for a dispute policy.  Dispute policies
> should only codify a process for rights that are established by law.
>
> >>As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.
>
> > No RFCs which regulate that?
>
> The only RFC that governs ccTLDs is 1591, since that is what they were
> delegated under. A large number of ccTLDs do not operate whois
> services.
>
> RFC's are not mandatory, anyway, and IANA and ICANN's regulatory power
> over the ccTLDs is very tenuous at best, since they (the ccTLDs) are
> not under contract to them so there is no enforcement mechanism.

--
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