Re: [ga] Geographic and Geopolitical Names in .info

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

let me  count the ways:

1.


> what would be wrong with .gac?
> 
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
>> You know what: the easiest is to give the GAC a TLD and to forget
>> about that stupid issue. It takes two minutes to add their IPs in the
>> root and to save the records.....
>>
>> Now wich TLD? ".off" for official, ".state", may be "gac" ...
>>
>> >Bill,
>> >
>> >Yes, Jon had many good intentions, but I do not believe he forsaw the
>> >many political and legal pressures that we must deal with today. 
>> >With that said, I sure do miss his leadership and ability to get the
>> >right thing done the right way.
>> >
>> >There is no harm in trying to achieve the ideal, but attempting to
>> >change the policy surrounding .gov or .mil would seem futile at best.
>> >
>> >Getting back to the subject of country names in gTLDs...what are we
>> >do to when countries change names?  Zaire used to be a country, which
>> >is now called Democratic Republic of Congo.  The USSR is now split
>> >into many different countries.  If we reserve country domains now,
>> >how will we protect new names later in gTLDs?  I think this is
>> >precisely why keeping ccTLDs as a nation's soverign namespace is a
>> >big part of any solution (whether that actually occurs in many cases
>> >of ccTLDs is an entirely different discussion).
>> >
>> >Another alternative for protection of countries in gTLDs is to
>> >reserve every 2 letter combination, which in turn reserves every
>> >ISO-3166 code possible for future delegations and name changes. 
>> >While I personally don't like the idea, I should be an option.
>> >
>> >Josh
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: J. William Semich [mailto:bill@mail.nic.nu]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:18 PM
>> >To: Josh Elliott; Roberto Gaetano; Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr;
>> >alexander@svensson.de; ga@dnso.org
>> >Subject: RE: [ga] Geographic and Geopolitical Names in .info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Josh:
>> >
>> >I'm not sure it is pure fantasy, although you may be closer to the
>> >"reality" than I.
>> >
>> >I do recall that it was Jon Postel's intention that all US government
>> >agencies, divisions, etc. should start using .us instead of .gov, and
>> >given time, I could find at least half a dozen references in which he
>> >said as much, both as IANA and as the .us administrator.
>> >
>> >Anyway, I agree it would be a difficult thing to change - still, no
>> >harm in putting it back on the table, right?
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >
>> >Bill Semich
>> >
>> >At 02:27 PM 9/19/2001 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote:
>> > >Bill,
>> > >
>> > >While I understand your point, I still think you are in fantasy
>> > >world.  The reality is that the US will not give up .GOV or .MIL. 
>> > >I suggest we find a more realistic alternative or just leave the
>> > >governments of the world to
>> >use
>> > >their cctld.  Think of .GOV and .MIL as the Internet's donation to
>> > >the US gvt for building the Net in the first place.
>> > >
>> > >If we are going to truly have competition among gTLDs, then country
>> > >names
>> >or
>> > >ISO-3166 codes should not be protected in the new gTLDs as they are
>> > >not protected in .com, .net, and .org.
>> > >
>> > >Josh
>> > >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of J.
>> > >William Semich
>> > >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:59 AM
>> > >To: Roberto Gaetano; Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr;
>> > >alexander@svensson.de; ga@dnso.org
>> > >Subject: Re: [ga] Geographic and Geopolitical Names in .info
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >I strongly recommend that the US Government's DOC release .gov for
>> > >the use by all other officially recognized (by the UN?)
>> > >government/geopolitical organizations wishing to have their own
>> > >domain names, and not reserve geopolitical names in .info for
>> > >government use. Then at least the "consumers" of information on the
>> > >Internet will know when they are at an official government site,
>> > >and can judge the quality and truthfulness of the information
>> > >presented in that light.
>> > >
>> > >For example, Afghanistan.gov would clearly have information that is
>> > >sanctioned and approved by the government of Afghanistan; but
>> > >Afghanistan.info may have more complete, and objective,
>> > >information, if it is allowed to be registered by an independent
>> > >source of information about Afghanistan (perhaps the Encyclopedia
>> > >Britannica or some other reliable source of information.) The same
>> > >would hold for usa.info and others.
>> > >
>> > >The key issue here is that a domain name for governments should
>> > >clearly be labeled as just that. And the .gov domain name which is
>> > >currently "closed for US use only", should be opened to other
>> > >governments to serve that purpose internationally, and not the more
>> > >general .info.
>> > >
>> > >The purpose and meaning of ".info" should not be twisted to mean
>> > >"whatever a particular government of the day wants you to know."
>> > >
>> > >Bill Semich
>> > >Internet Users Society - Niue
>> > >
>> > >At 02:10 PM 9/19/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> > > >Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Would you explain why you consider trademarks rights
>> > > >>more important that countrie's and people's rights ?
>> > > >
>> > > >I am not under the impression that Alexander was considering TM
>> > > >superior rights as the countries' rights.
>> > > >As for the people's rights, I don't see them always better
>> > > >protected by a Government rather than by another body. But that's
>> > > >bringing us away from the scope of the comment.
>> > > >
>> > > >I also think that the reservation of the country name as per
>> > > >ISO-3166
>> >does
>> > > >not make sense at all, and I am very much surprised that the GAC
>> > > >did not notice it. According to the motion voted by ICANN, fancy
>> > > >things will happen, like for instance:
>> > > >- the names "germany.info" and "allemagne.info" will be reserved
>> > > >for Germany, while maybe the German Government would have
>> > > >probably have
>> >rather
>> > > >chosen "Deutschland.info", but the latter is not in ISO-3166
>> > > >(remember that ISO-3166 is bilingual French-English, but does not
>> > > >contain the names in their native language[s]);
>> > > >- very useful and easy to guess strings like "holy see (vatican
>> > > >city state).info" and "macedonia, the former yugoslav republic
>> > > >of.info" will
>> >be
>> > > >reserved.
>> > > >
>> > > >Also, ISO-3166 does not define the names of the countries, but
>> > > >their codes: the names are provided for reference to point to the
>> > > >ISO codes. In fact, if you look at ISO-3166 attentively, there
>> > > >are some slight glitches in the names (for instance, "Taiwan,
>> > > >Province of China" should read "Taiwan Province of China",
>> > > >without comma).
>> > > >The authoritative source for the names is not ISO, but the United
>> > > >Nations Statistic Division (see:
>> > > >http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/methods/). Official bulletins define
>> > > >both the short form, used in day-to-day work, and the long
>> > > >(official) form. Moreover, this list is translated in all
>> > > >official
>> >UN
>> > > >languages, and UNSD keeps track of the names of the countries in
>> > > >their native language[s]. First hand, complete and correct
>> > > >information. In simple words, the matter is a little bit more
>> > > >complicated than what some Directors have assumed.
>> > > >
>> > > >Anyway, my personal pick is for a specialised TLD where the
>> > > >Member States of the UN can register one or more SLDs of their
>> > > >choice (to be consistent with the documentation managed by UNSD),
>> > > >and then it is their choice whether they want to use it or not,
>> > > >subdivide geographically, give it to trademarks owners or tourist
>> > > >associations or their national Registry.
>> >They
>> > > >can choose if the name will be in English, French, or the
>> > > >national language[s], provided, as I said, that the string is
>> > > >compatible with the UNSD documentation.
>> > > >
>> > > >My personal thanks to Directors (in alphabetical order) Abril y
>> > > >Abril, Auerbach, Blokzijl, Mueller-Maguhn, Murai, Pisanty,
>> > > >Quaynor, who voted against, arguing that some more thinking was
>> > > >needed before deciding.
>> > > >
>> > > >Best regards
>> > > >Roberto
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >_________________________________________________________________
>> > > >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
> 
> --
> Dan Steinberg
> 
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> 
> 
> --
> 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