RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very different from the
gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many of the
restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations implementing policy
over TLD registrations.

I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for those wanting a
separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may really be quite
different at this point in time, but even that could change in the future.
If they want to play in the global Internet, I contend that they are more
like gTLDs than different.  If they want to set up their own private network
within their region of control, then they would not need access to the
global Internet and then it could be justified that they are very different.

Chuck     

-----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force




On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> 

Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy is 
there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others signed away 
their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a contract to operate 
the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs have not done that to my 
knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on the IANA website it states that

country code domains were created to be used by each individual country as 
they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading because they were 
assigned to individuals or entities within those countries and not to the 
countries themselves.

It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be 
compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the ccTLD 
and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should.  As a ccTLD, 
.US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is being handled badly, 
IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red tape for who knows how long.  
Whether it will become useful for the US public remains to be seen.

Leah



> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: roomkin@law.miami.edu; ga@dnso.org; Roberto Gaetano
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Leah,
> > 
> > >
> > >It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that
> > >would actually be in a much better position to determine what is a
> > >valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just
> > 
> > Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> > trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if
> > there should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some
> > of the ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of
> > their respective governments, and that what should be a
> > technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> > mini-GAC?
> > 
> 
> As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My 
> comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their 
> policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and 
> many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some 
> areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is
> most important for them.
> 
> > We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?
> 
> Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> > Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> > instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> > on ICANN.
> 
> I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred
> action.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this
> > >manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those organizations
> > >as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply perform the clerical
> > >entry of the information provided by the ccTLD organizations.  IOW,
> > >cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the TLDs they now control
> > >and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I see no need for ICANN to
> > >micromanage them or force them to comply with policies that could
> > >very well go against their cultures and laws.
> > >
> > >Leah
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
--
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