RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I believe that 

1. icann should interact with  ccTLDs.
2. ccTLDs should inteact with ICANN.

The Internet is truly global. Both technicasl coordination and model
policy should be as consistent as possible.

This does not mean that "ICANN rules".

Here's an example, ICANN has UDRP, ccTLDs have, or will have "Local
DRP". Interaction will assure that each TLD has SOME kind of dispute
resolution policy, and that such policy is applied fairly.

Also, interaction and consultation between various constituencies and
Sos facilitates the security and stability of the global Internet

Peter de Blanc


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:08 PM
To: Peter Dengate-Thrush
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force


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@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


--
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