Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight" Body?
The key distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is given on the IANA web site
There are two types of top-level domains, generic and country code. Generic
domains were created for use by the Internet public, while country code
domains were created to be used by each individual country as they deemed
In other words, they key distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs is a matter of
control. In the case of ccTLDs, it is up to individual countries to
determine how their ccTLD is to be used; and if any country deems it
necessary to open up their ccTLD that is their perogative. Thus Jim is
incorrect when he says:
In short, the whole notion of ccTLDs
quickly breaks down and once the Postel Regime ended, people saw
how quickly TLDs like .TV, .AM, .FM and .MD became generic.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JIM FLEMING" <JimFleming@prodigy.net>
To: "Horacio T. Cadiz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Cc: "erica" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:19 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight"
> Many moons (years) ago, when it was discovered that the
> (so-called) ccTLDs were in many cases shams, and products
> of academic glad-handing, in the Postel Regime, some attention
> was paid to the 3-letter TLDs. They were recognized for
> IPv8/IPv16 allocations in order to try to restore some
> fairness to the process.
> 6:3 PHL (PHILIPPINES)
> 6:184 PH (PHILIPPINES)
> Unfortunately, this quickly lead to the realization that
> .COM would be a 3-letter "countr code" and would be delegated
> to people unaware of the history and value of .COM. From there
> discussions were road-blocked and/or de-railed by people branching
> into all sorts of directions concerned about too much government
> control, how ccTLDs are created, etc. Underlying much of it were
> ccTLD "managers" looking out for their own self-interest but
> claiming to have some consensus mandate from the local community.
> After years of watching these travesties, some people have grown
> to accept that a TLD is a TLD. It is a string. Sure, 2-letters are
> probably more desirable than 3. Actually, one-letter TLDs have
> some interesting twists and break some software tools, but they
> can also be made to work. In short, the whole notion of ccTLDs
> quickly breaks down and once the Postel Regime ended, people saw
> how quickly TLDs like .TV, .AM, .FM and .MD became generic.
> We now are faced with a different problem. The world has embraced
> freedom and democracy, and they expect that the system that
> delivered the Internet to their door is founded on these principles.
> When they look under the rug and behind the scenes they find this
> is hardly the case. [ As an aside, people tell me the same can be
> said of modern-day Cuba. People visit and get the impression that
> it is a thriving resort mecca, and have to look closer to see the
> 40+ years of behind-the-scenes abuse of that community. Some choose
> to put their heads in the sand, and believe that beautiful country
> (physically) is of the people, by the people and for the people. ]
> It seems to me that the dilema at this point is whether to waste
> human energies investigating all of the past abuses from the Postel
> Regime, or whether to move forward and spend the energies applauding
> the companies (like http://www.New.Net) who have helped to set the
> next generation Internet free. As with most human processes, I suspect
> you will find people choosing a little of each. Some will focus more
> on the past and some more on the future, and as usual, a huge number
> will try to find the middle ground. Unfortunately, that middle position
> does not create change. The pendulum has swung in favor of democracy
> with the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. I encourage everyone
> to take advantage of the next 4 years to help free the Internet from
> the past abuses.
> Jim Fleming
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Horacio
> T. Cadiz
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 7:06 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: erica; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight"
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Jim Ayson wrote:
> > At 04:55 PM 6/11/01 +0900, YJ Park \(MINC\) wrote:
> > >As Erica described here, we are all here to particiapate in DNSO
> > >building process. In this respect, ccTLD issues need to be discussed in
> > >open manner to reach such consensus through GA, and other
> > >which in some sense we have already started by sharing views in the
> > >forum.
> > >
> > >ccSO proposal sounds in general consulted with most constituencies and
> > >was supported by them(no formal consultation in NCDNHC yet) in public.
> > >However, we are just at its initial stage to explore ccTLD-related
> > >from "Best Practice" into "Local Internet Community" etc.....
> > I am not sure how it happened in other countries, but I can assure you
> > there was no public discussion or transparency in the Philippines (.PH)
> > regarding the ccSO proposal - come to think there is no attempt any
> > consultation with the Local Internet Community whatsoever around here.
> In fact, in the Stockholm ccTLD meeting, the Philippine ccTLD
> administrator made two strange proposals to ammend the
> Best Practices Document. The first ammendment was to consult but not
> to necessarilly follow the local community. The second was
> to dispense with consultation in the guise that it was an
> expensive process! With at ccTLD administrator like this, how can the
> local Internet community ever participate in the process which affects
> their ccTLD?
> * Horacio T. Cadiz Philippine Network Foundation, Inc. (PHNET) *
> * firstname.lastname@example.org Carpe per diem! Sieze the paycheck! *
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: JimFleming@prodigy.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to