RE: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

I have argued in the past that the creation of new gTLDs is of critical
importance precisely because some ccTLDs are so limited.  There are many in
which you cannot register a name if you are a natural person (instead of a
business), and some have restrictions where you can't get a name unless you
are a customer of the phone company.  Therefore, *visibility* on the net,
for many people, depends on open and accessible gTLDs.

Antony

P.S. Yes, RFC 1591 dates from 1994, and is out of date.  Yes, changes could
be made.  No, it does not need to be jettisoned in favor of a vague and
worrisome and wholly new principle of sovereignty.  The RFC should be used
as a starting point from which to move forward in the DNSO, and until such
time as it is modified it should continue to be recognized.


[Einar wrote]
> >So, before the roof caves in, we all need to be very careful to
> >preserve our rights to use non-ccTLD DNS names, adn we have to be
> >careful to avoid governments' capture of control of ICANN or the DNSO.
> >
> >It is already disurbing to see the current trends in the situation.
> >
[Joop wrote]
> Yes. It is worrying.  I am afraid that Anthony, William and others are
> sticking their head in the sand on this point.  Maybe this comes
> from being
> based in the U.S., where the trend is less visible. Kent is more realistic
> in this respect.
> New, free, self-governed gTLD's are of critical importance. Self-governed
> ccTLD's need to be 100% above suspicion in order to escape from being
> regulated.
> RFC 1591 dates from 1994.   Things are changing fast.