RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chuck,
may be the ccTLD will understand sometime that their real legitimacy, role 
and business interest is to take care of their constituency and market; 
i.e. animating and serving their Local Internet Community. But please do 
not push too much about "global"!  gTLD still means generic.

I think most of the NICs should consider being gTLD/inclusive root 
registrars instead of leading you to open an office cross their street and 
ISPs to provide extended root support.

Jefsey




On 15:40 02/09/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very different from the
>gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many of the
>restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations implementing policy
>over TLD registrations.
>
>I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for those wanting a
>separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may really be quite
>different at this point in time, but even that could change in the future.
>If they want to play in the global Internet, I contend that they are more
>like gTLDs than different.  If they want to set up their own private network
>within their region of control, then they would not need access to the
>global Internet and then it could be justified that they are very different.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
>Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>
>
>On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> >
>
>Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy is
>there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others signed away
>their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a contract to operate
>the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs have not done that to my
>knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on the IANA website it states that
>
>country code domains were created to be used by each individual country as
>they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading because they were
>assigned to individuals or entities within those countries and not to the
>countries themselves.
>
>It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be
>compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the ccTLD
>and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should.  As a ccTLD,
>.US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is being handled badly,
>IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red tape for who knows how long.
>Whether it will become useful for the US public remains to be seen.
>
>Leah
>
>
>
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: roomkin@law.miami.edu; ga@dnso.org; Roberto Gaetano
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > > Leah,
> > >
> > > >
> > > >It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that
> > > >would actually be in a much better position to determine what is a
> > > >valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just
> > >
> > > Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> > > trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if
> > > there should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some
> > > of the ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of
> > > their respective governments, and that what should be a
> > > technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> > > mini-GAC?
> > >
> >
> > As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My
> > comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their
> > policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and
> > many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some
> > areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is
> > most important for them.
> >
> > > We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?
> >
> > Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> > > Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> > > instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> > > on ICANN.
> >
> > I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred
> > action.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this
> > > >manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those organizations
> > > >as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply perform the clerical
> > > >entry of the information provided by the ccTLD organizations.  IOW,
> > > >cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the TLDs they now control
> > > >and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I see no need for ICANN to
> > > >micromanage them or force them to comply with policies that could
> > > >very well go against their cultures and laws.
> > > >
> > > >Leah
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html