DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step


IMO, it has always been a "buyer beware" situation with any ccTLD 
since they are, in fact, country specific.  Even if the registrar is located 
in this country, its rules are born in their contract with the cctLD, and 
that is based on specific countries' laws.  The ccTLD could cancel a 
contract with a provider and there would be little or no protection for 

I really don't feel that ICANN should interefere with how ccTLDs operate. 
 That is a business decision and it should be up to registrants to know 
what they are buying and what the guarantees are.  I also think that 
registries are responsible for setting basic terms of service and that 
registrars are then responsible for including those basic terms in their 
own contracts.  This is why it is so important to read the user 
agreements for each registry/registrar and then decide whether you 
want to do business with them.

Finally, I think that it is time to offer "privacy bureau" services so that 
domain name holders have privacy protection and not have their 
personal information plastered all over the net.


On 6 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/6/01 7:27 AM, DPF at david@farrar.com 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 ?
> Regards,
> Joanna
> --
> 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

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>