<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
Chuck, you say "a lot of ccTLD registries" - could you be more explicit
please ? Which ccTLD you see as functionning like gTLD registries ?
What does it mean "like gTLD registries" ?
Information in many languages ? Advertisements (paper press, TV)
in many countries ? Using ICANN Registrars as resellers ?
Elisabeth
--
>
> Elisabeth,
>
> I am sure you know I am not advocating that ccTLDs should use English to
> communicate with their constituencies.
>
> Moreover, to the extent that a ccTLD is restricted to a narrow geographical
> region (e.g., country), I am not suggesting that such a ccTLD would benefit
> from the same constituency structure as in the current DNSO. But as you
> well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not restricted to their own
> geographical region; they function essentially like gTLD registries on a
> global basis. In those cases, I see little difference between ccTLDs and
> gTLDs because users expand beyond local boarders and associated policy
> issues are the pretty much the same.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> > To: DannyYounger@cs.com; barrister@chambers.gen.nz;
> > cgomes@verisign.com;
> > ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> > You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> > from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> > telcos, ISP and others.
> > We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
> >
> > The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> > and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is
> > to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> > every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
> >
> > I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid
> > [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency
> > structure should
> > be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you
> > suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
> >
> > I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between
> > ccTLD and gTLD.
> > The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> > not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> > is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> > Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> > - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> > on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate
> > .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> > On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages,
> > Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> > and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is
> > an US flag up front.
> >
> > Amicalement,
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > --
> >
> > > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't
> > "benefit" from the
> > > input of other consituencies. ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies? I can
> > > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not
> > because those
> > > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > > To: barrister@chambers.gen.nz; ga@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that
> > > > you have asked,
> > > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and
> > > > registrars to sit
> > > > around the table with their user community?"
> > > >
> > > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional
> > > > mechanism by which
> > > > relevant user community input will be respected within the
> > > > proposed ccSO?
> > > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer
> > > > some structural
> > > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > > >
> > > > best regards,
> > > > Danny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|