RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

This time, Leah, I agree completely with you!

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of L
Gallegos
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:47 AM
To: froomkin@law.miami.edu; Roberto Gaetano; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force




On 31 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Leah,
> 
> >
> >Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why ccTLDs 
> >should not simply be included in the root and let it go at that.
> 
> 
> With which mechanism?
> I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the 
> operator is authoritative? Somebody must have the responsibility for 
> inclusion of a new TLD, things do not just happen by themselves.

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 
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

> 
> >
> >On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> 
> Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root. 
> The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new 
> records shall be created/removed. You may consider it unfortunate, but

> ICANN has this authority, even if it acts only under adult supervision

> by USG (by USG has made it clear since the Ira Magaziner times that it

> wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating the front role to an 
> entity acting under agreement with USG). In other words, if it is not 
> ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner (USG) considers 
> politically unwise to act directly.
> 
> 
> > > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> > >
> 
> If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
> But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder,

> and would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like 
> Registrants are trying to do.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative 
> scenario that you envisage for entry/exit from the root? - ccTLDs 
> "self-manage"; - USG acting directly; - a third entity different from 
> ICANN does it (VeriSign?)
> 
see above.
--
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