<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
Thanks Elizabeth, without getting in to the weeds to much, it is true that
each ccTLD at this point in time has different policies with respect to
transfers, deletions, grace periods, etc. That being said, however, the
fact that each ccTLD has their own policies does not mean that there could
not be an effort to standardize some of these to come up with best
practices on a global level.
Again, some will argue that there is no such thing as a global policy issue.
I disagree. We will have to just agree to disagree here. I believe that a
global forum (be it ICANN or another entity) to discuss these types of
policy matters with global users would be a useful tool to standardize
certain practices within the ccTLD community. That was my main point. We
can argue all day about the details.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:57 PM
To: DannyYounger@cs.com; Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr;
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; barrister@chambers.gen.nz; cgomes@verisign.com;
ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
Jeff,
What let you think that any of the listed can apply to many
if not all ccTLD ? All are related to the local customs.
- (1) Grace Periods are not relevant in countries
where you can have automated bank payment for service,
or where you cannot sell a domain name
- I do not see why (5) Uniform Deletion Periods should be uniform.
- (3) Escrow is a national matter, and an absolute no issue
for global policy (besides that it is better to have a backup
when you run a registry)
- (4) Dispute Resolution Policies depends on the naming charter,
and are totaly different from country to country
the same for (2) Transfers
> 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.
Absolutely. The local aspect makes the difference.
Add language and legislation, you will see how strong it is.
Best regards,
Elisabeth
--
> From owner-ga@dnso.org Mon Sep 30 19:35 MET 2002
> Message-ID:
<15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA81540E87@stntexch2.va.neustar.com>
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
> To: "'Elisabeth Porteneuve'" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>,
> DannyYounger@cs.com, barrister@chambers.gen.nz,
cgomes@verisign.com,
> ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in
exactly
> the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way. 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
>
> 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
>
>
--
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
>>>
|