Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

It is not within ICANN's purview to revoke a TLD or a ccTLD.  Show me
the authority granted, if I'm wrong.

This is the same organization who, if I'm not mistaken, is suppose to
assure the stability of the Internet, yet they introduced TLDs which
they knew would collide.

Now, to create more chaos, rather than maintain stability, they are
intent upon turning the lights off on a ccTLD.  I understand that a
transition may be in order, but what difference does it really make.
The change only inconveniences the Registrant who is forced to fit
into someone else's divine mold.

If they want to keep using .su, who really cares.  There are a lot of
ISO country codes which don't naturally fit - if that wasn't true,
then I wouldn't have to go look them up and my IQ is higher than a
rock.

None of this makes any practical sense.  ICANN is out of control.



Sunday, October 20, 2002, 2:44:14 PM, David Farrar <david@farrar.com> wrote:
DF> Bret Fausett wrote:
>> I'd be interested in hearing views on what *should* happen with the .su
>> ccTLD. Once a country, always a ccTLD? Or should ccTLD delegations bear some
>> more precise relationship to national identities?

DF> This is a fascinating area.  Just a couple of days ago I said that no 
DF> registrant operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to policy 
DF> changes etc.

DF> However if a country changes it name and hence its ISO3166-1 code it does 
DF> create problems.  An argument *could* be made that as all the businesses and 
DF> individuals will have to be spending money changing their physical and postal 
DF> addresses that the same burden should apply to their internet address.

DF> If you went down this path you would want registrants to be able to go from 
DF> (for example) domainname.su to domainname.ru.  However if the new domain name 
DF> has been operating at the same time as the old one you may end up with 
DF> collisions.  Also the two ccTLDs may have different managers and hence 
DF> different naming policies.

DF> So overall I think it is fairer not to close down a ccTLD just because the 
DF> country disappears.  Close it down for new registrations but allow current 
DF> registrants to stay there as legacy.

DF> The exception may be if the renamed country wants it old TLD deleted.  So if 
DF> New Zealand became Aotearoa and went from .nz to .ao it might one day decide to 
DF> delete .nz.  But when a country splits rather than is renamed such as 
DF> Czechoslovakia and USSR then it is not clear if anyone can speak for the old 
DF> ccTLD.  I suppose the government of whereever the old registry is physically 
DF> located could pass a law closing it down if it really wanted.

DF> DPF

DF> --
DF> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
DF> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
DF> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
DF> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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