[wg-c] forwarded for Jay Parker

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 17:49:20 -0500
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs
>From: Jack Parker <jeparker@mindspring.com>
>To: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
>CC: <wg-c@dnso.org>
>
>Milton,
>Thanks for the reply. I completely agree that the .eu proponents' motives
>and rationale are probably flawed and less than 100% pure. I just hope
>standards can be developed which make it very difficult - but not impossible
>-  for rTLD groups to form. For example, what if participants had to
>"donate" a certain amount of their ccTLD allotment to form the rTLD pool? Is
>that feasible? What if most of the revenue gathered from rTLD registrations
>had to be fed back into programs which supported significant internet
>development? Those are the kinds of things we're discussing in the .carib
>initiative.  
>
>
>Jay Parker
>West Indies Communications Group
>International Trust House
>180 East Bay Street
>Charleston, South Carolina 29401
>USA
>tel: +843-805-8460
>fax: +843-805-8466
>www.westcomgroup.com
>
>> From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
>> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 16:39:52 -0500
>> To: wgc <wg-c@dnso.org>
>> Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs
>> 
>> Jay:
>> I doubt if anyone is dismissing the notion of a regional TLD. Many of us
>> support
>> any number of new TLDs, including regional ones. The problem with .EU is
the
>> method by which the proposal is being promoted. .EU is really just a new
TLD
>> that certain Europeans want to compete with dot com, yet it is being
advanced
>> as
>> a kind of quasi-ccTLD. This is both dishonest and a case of
queue-jumping. The
>> advocates of EU have refused to respect the DNSO's procedures, but
instead are
>> attempting to use sheer political muscle to get a delegation. This sets a
>> dangerous precedent.
>> 
>> As Rutkowski has already pointed out, there is a large measure of
hypocrisy in
>> the request. For two or three years the EC insisted that dot com and the
other
>> gTLDs were international in scope and needed to be regulated on an
>> international
>> basis, via ICANN. They got what they wanted. Now they're saying that com
isn't
>> really global, it's North American, and when it comes to THEIR own regional
>> TLD,
>> it doesn't have to do through ICANN's DNSO it can just be created via
>> political
>> fiat. This request has disastrous consequences for DNSO and its
procedures if
>> its successful. It says that DNSO is a sideshow. It says that the little
folk
>> can play around with working groups and follow the rules all they like,
but if
>> the big guys with guns decide they want something it will happen.
>> 
>> This working group has documented an overwhelming consensus for the
addition
>> of
>> a significant number of new TLDs. There will be room for a .eu and many
others
>> once we settle the implementation issues. If that process is
short-circuited
>> via
>> a end-around .EU delegation we've all been wasting our time.
>> 
>> Jay Parker wrote:
>> 
>>> The .eu debate is complicated, that much is clear. However, there are
areas
>>> of the globe, such as the Caribbean Basin, which could benefit
tremendously
>>> from the kind of community a regional TLD could foster. Unlike the EU,
which
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>