RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["Alf Hansen" <Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>]

Well said, Elisabeth.

There is no "fight" between gTLDs and ccTLDs. Let the Registrants choose the
addresss space they want to be in. The ccTLD managers are trying to do the
"best" for their local Internet communities, most of them on an
non-commercial basis, with some kind of relation with their local
governments.

Among ccTLDs there is a consept of "Best Practice" built on the belief that
the best practice will serve the interests of the local internet communitiy
as a whole (not neccessarily serving the intersts of the ccTLDs themselves
or the Governments only). For ccTLD managers ICANN is a "partner" because
ICANN contributes to stability in a global open Internet, which is extremely
important for the local Internet community.

I don't mind if there are thousands of new gTLDs, as long as Internet
stability is preserved. Let the Registrants choose where they feel they
belong in the address space. If they feel at home with local law under a
country code, they will register their names with ccTLDs. If they are
comfortable in a g-name space, they will choose a gTLD with the best suited
policy and law.

In any case DNS has to work in a globally interconnected Internet. The gTLDs
and the other constituencies in the current DNSO may have different
motivations for SUPPORTING ICANN than the ccTLDs. Therefore a separate ccTLD
SUPPORT ORGANISATION may be a good thing, also for ICANN.

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> Porteneuve
> Sent: 2. september 2001 19:24
> To: cgomes@verisign.com; ga@dnso.org; jandl@jandl.com
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>
>
> The ccTLDs represent Local Internet Communities, and contrary to the
> gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries do not operate under the US law
> and jurisdiction, but under national law and jurisdiction.
>
> This is the main and most important reason.
>
> The ccTLD form the genuine global worldwide network, using all languages,
> implemented in all countries, operating a large spectra of
> business models.
>
> Note that ccTLD has been very positive to ICANN creation, sending
> money and expecting the real international body for all Registries.
> Since two years the ccTLD has been contributing 35% of ICANN budget,
> 1.5 million US dollars, all from foreign countries !
> During the same two years ICANN Staff spent all their time on contracts
> with gTLD registries and registrars.
>
> I agree with you Chuck: the ccTLD are certainly not really very
> different from gTLD, they demand equal considerations within ICANN.
>
> The real stability of global Internet depends on all components,
> not only 3+7=10 gTLD, but also 242 ccTLD.
>
> Elisabeth
> --
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From owner-ga@dnso.org Sun Sep  2 15:52 MET 2001
> Message-ID:
> <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C3EDEC@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> To: "'jandl@jandl.com'" <jandl@jandl.com>, ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:40:50 -0400
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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