Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step
on 6/6/01 7:27 AM, DPF at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for
>> the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client.
> It is worth remembering that some ccTLDs are primarily controlled by
> their customers. ISOCNZ controls *.nz and most members are just
> ordinary users. Not to say such control has always been there but we
> should be careful about assuming that ccTLD registries are directly
> comparable to gTLD registries. The latter are just a business seeking
> to make money, the formers are a variety of forms.
As an individual registrant, I don't need to know about (although I may be
interested in) all the ins and outs of how a particular ccTLD is structured.
What I do need to know is that I have a forum to air grievances against both
my ccTLD and my gTLD registries, in the form of an ombudsman. If that is to
be an internal procedure of each country, so be it, but that still leaves
gTLD registrant issues within ICANN.
A ccSO effectively puts all country specific issues offtopic for DNSO, so
the IDNHC proposal must now be reviewed in the light of this development.
What are the alternatives ?
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html