Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not i n 10-23 report

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

[The infixed jurisdiction sectorial proposal, xxFOO, where xx == some ccTLD
 and FOO == some sectorially suggestive string, is one of the dumber things
 I've seen, but it does provide the opportunity to remark that the capacity
 to regulate based upon territorial geography isn't a requirement for gTLDs.

 A capacity to regulate, however, without reference to territorial geography,
 is
	a) an operational requirement (IAB unique DNS root, etc.),
	b) a marks requirement (WIPO final report, etc.),
and
	c) for some partially articulated reasons, a requirement for ICANN
	   (or its sucessors in interest should ICANN fail, an outcome more
	   possible now than a year ago, IMO), and other institutions, the
	   US included.

 This WG appears to be in terminal thrash, erratically bumping from old noise
 to newcommer nonsense, in a race to discredit its best work before it can be
 discarded by its intended recipients.
]

Andrew Dalgleish commenting on James Love's comment on some unfortuante
wooly-mindedness from two or more sources:

> What I don't understand is why we need TLDs in the form ".xxbanks"
> (where xx is the country code).
> 
> Surely this should be handled under the relevant ccTLD?
> (such that ".usbanks" becomes ".banks.us").
> 
> This would allow each country to regulate their own segment of the
> domain name space, according to local needs and regulations.
> 
> Keep all country-specific domains out of the global name-space.
> (This applies to *all* countries, not just the USA.)

We, or our sucessors in interest, must eventually take an honest swing at
sectorial regulatory interests which are multi-jurisdictional, sweeping
the dust under quilts of nationalist rugs isn't a proper job.

I'm not cheered, so I won't bother to conclude with my habitual "cheers".
Eric