RE: [wg-b] Famous Third-Level Domains

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 07:54 29.11.99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>This brings us into new territory. Previously, third-level domains were
>considered immune and I believe case-law supported this, at least partially.
>There were only a few third-level registries (ie. ML.ORG). Your statement
>encompasses those registries, as registry and registrant are then two
>different entities. Once we do this, we are also talking fifth-level and
>onwards. Is this the intent?

Note the perspective: When we were trying to influence/craft/tune the WIPO 
report, it was in the context of giving *advice* to operators of 
registries. We thought the advice was reasonably good for both .COM, .NO 
and .CO.UK, but it would be up to the registry owner for that particular 
domain to take our advice or not.

In the ICANN context, I think we as an ICANN-related WG are duty bound to 
think only of the registries that ICANN thinks the rules are applicable 
for: .COM, .NET, .ORG and any new TLD that ICANN decides the rules are 
applicable for.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that ICANN has, for now, declared that it 
will not write such rules into the rules for country-code domains that it 
has delegated, and therefore, by extension, not for their subdomains either.
So both .IO and .CO.UK are "somebody else's problem" for now, I think.

Clearer?

                      Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no