Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jeff and all assembly members,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
> also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
> body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
> Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.

  I believe that the forum of which you refer is the DNSO GA.  And so
far it seems to be a good one for the most part.

  Global issues or such  what you mention may indeed seem global
in some respects, but are also local as well.  They should be addressed
on a case by case basis as local issues.  Of all or the issues you
seem to believe are global that you listed, all also have huge local
ramifications.  Therefore it would seem both wise and necessary that
they be addressed locally as they apply to ccTLD's and registrants
of gTLD's as well that do not reside in the US.

>
>
> As our contract with the Department of Commerce sets forth, we are required
> to look towards ICANN for global policy issues.  It is in the ICANN arena
> that we often choose to participate from both a ccTLD and gTLD perspective
> because in our opinion some of these issues affect all global users equally.

  Your opinion is not widely shared, obviously...

>
> In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in exactly
> the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way.

  Well in that you have yet to provide a convincing or even a reasonable
argument to support this conclusion, it is obvious that it is therefore
invalid.

>  I understand
> that there are may ccTLDs that do not believe that there are any global
> policy issues.  We do not believe that to be the case.  If

  We?  Who is "We"?  Do  you have a mouse in your pocket?  >;)

>
>
> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.
>
> -----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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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