Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

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

Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why 
ccTLDs should not simply be included in the root and let it go at 
that.  

On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Actually, I kind of wonder
> 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> 
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:
> 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
> > To: <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > On 30 Aug 2001, at 10:39, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2001-08-29 18:38:46 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I thought that DNSO stood for DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING
> > > > >ORGANIZATION. How in the world can that be transformed so that
> > > > >it no longer has responsibility for domain name policy?
> > > >
> > > > Look at the ccTLDs.  Responsibility for domain name policy
> > > > _will_ be split over multiple SOs.
> > >
> > > ccTLDs should have complete control over their policies, domain or
> > > otherwise.  The DNSO should continue to have the same concerns it
> > > has had.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > Its because the cc's actually have complete control over their
> > policies that makes them so different from the gTLDs, which are
> > "owned and controlled" by ICANN.
> > 
> > The cc's are responsible to their Local Internet Community, which is
> > a self defining community,  and which more and more involves the
> > government of the territory whose name corresponds to the 2 letter
> > ISO code for that territory.
> > 
> > Its because the DNSO has in fact only ever dealt with gTLD domain
> > name issues that the cc's have voted to withdraw. The DNSO was never
> > intended or able to affect ccTLD domain name issues.
> > 
> > > The at-large OTOH encompasses the whole enchilada.  The ccTLD SO
> > > may also encompass more than just domain names, as well as being
> > > autonomous and having the right to participate or not in the ICANN
> > > process.  The fact that most of them choose to participate is good
> > > for ICANN, whether they adopt all or some of ICANN's policies. 
> > > They, also need a stronger voice.
> > >
> > > I hope the board gets the message.
> > 
> > Me, too. I am confident that it has.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> > ccTLD Adcom Member
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
>   Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm U.
> Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1
> (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                  -->It's very hot and humid here.<--
> 
> --
> 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
> 


--
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