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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

Just let me clarify something for the record.  I never said that there would
be supreme body that would make global policies "binding" on all of the
ccTLDs.  My posting merely was meant to say that ICANN would be a good forum
to discuss these issues and come to some sort of best practices for global
policy matters.

As a representative of a ccTLD, I certainly understand there are differences
in National Laws that would make having certain uniform policies binding on
all ccTLDs.  But lets not use the shield of local law/local culture for
every single policy issue.  After all, maybe someone can educate me here,
but I am aware of no law/cultural issue that would prohibit the
implementation of a Redemption Grace Period (as one example).  I admit I
could be wrong and I am willing to listen.

Yes, there are certain issues where local law can come into effect (i.e.,
trademark law, privacy, etc.).  But it seems to me that often times ccTLDs
hide behind that shield to basically state that there can never be any
global policy issues.  After all, when local law/culture is not implicated,
what is the harm in trying to come together, building consensus and
standardizing some policy issues for the global internet community (whether
it is a ccTLD or a gTLD).

-----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:27 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> 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 have to strongly disagree that these issues would be suitable for
global policies binding on all ccTLDs.

.nz has spent a massive amount of time consulting with local users on
exactly these issues and the suggestion that the will of the local
internet community should be subservient to an ICANN process is not
one which would find favour.  DIfferent countries have different laws
relating to privacy, consumer protection, trademarks so the whole
notion of global policies over all 245 ccTLDs is never going to
happen.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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