Re: [wg-c] Are cc:TLDs included in our Charter?

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> "regional generic" TLD is an artfully meaningless term.
> generic TLDs do not have anything to do with geography.

Obvious counterexample is .NAA, which is being advanced to this group as a
gTLD. This is a purely regional suffix, but is clearly a gTLD.

In fact, many conceivable gTLDs might have a regional or cultural specificity
to it. If a new TLD is in an African language, for example, is it not
predominantly regional in scope? Does that disqualify it as a gTLD? I don't
think so.

In fact, there is no authoritative definition of a "g" TLD, and I don't recall
either the DNSO or this working group adopting one.

> To the extent that there is anything about .eu to pursue, it is as an
> extension (or alternative) to ccTLDs.  The administrative model for ccTLDs
> is totally different from gTLDs.

Now here you are plainly wrong. There IS a very precise and specific
definition of ccTLDs, and it is provided by the ISO-3166-1 list. Dot EU is not
on that list. Therefore, dot EU is not a ccTLD. End of story. You are on more
accurate ground when you call .EU an "alternative" to ccTLDs, but obviously in
that case it can only be a gTLD, and cannot be considered a ccTLD.

There are basically three kinds of TLDs: so-called gTLDs created by IANA,
ccTLDs, and all other new TLDs that might be added. Whether those new TLDs are
"generic" according to the IAHC (speaking of ancient history) is not relevant
to this working group