Re: [wg-c] Are cc:TLDs included in our Charter?

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 04:25 PM 12/8/1999 , Milton Mueller wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > "regional generic" TLD is an artfully meaningless term.
> > generic TLDs do not have anything to do with geography.
>
>Obvious counterexample is .NAA, which is being advanced to this group as a
>gTLD. This is a purely regional suffix, but is clearly a gTLD.
>
>In fact, many conceivable gTLDs might have a regional or cultural specificity

The "or" should be an "and" for this topic, I think.

In that sense, EU is not about region but government, as are the ccTLDs.

That was the distinction I was intending, though you are right that pure 
geography is not the distinctive point.

>to it. If a new TLD is in an African language, for example, is it not
>predominantly regional in scope? Does that disqualify it as a gTLD? I don't
>think so.
>
>In fact, there is no authoritative definition of a "g" TLD, and I don't recall
>either the DNSO or this working group adopting one.

The working definition, when the term 'generic' was introduced for TLDs, 
essentially characterized it as having no particular registration (or 
administration) constraints.  That is, the category is not defined by any 
straightforward rule that permits predicting the next name or restricting 
registrants.

To that end, the "sponsored" TLDs would likely be massively different.

> > To the extent that there is anything about .eu to pursue, it is as an
> > extension (or alternative) to ccTLDs.  The administrative model for ccTLDs
> > is totally different from gTLDs.
>
>Now here you are plainly wrong. There IS a very precise and specific
>definition of ccTLDs, and it is provided by the ISO-3166-1 list. Dot EU is not
>on that list. Therefore, dot EU is not a ccTLD. End of story. You are on more
>accurate ground when you call .EU an "alternative" to ccTLDs, but obviously in
>that case it can only be a gTLD, and cannot be considered a ccTLD.

The set of ccTLD strings is defined by the ISO list, but the fall-back 
basis for assigning registry administration is governmental 
directive/request.  The latter is what makes .EU related to ccTLDs.  Far 
more than to a gTLD.

>There are basically three kinds of TLDs: so-called gTLDs created by IANA,
>ccTLDs, and all other new TLDs that might be added. Whether those new TLDs are
>"generic" according to the IAHC (speaking of ancient history) is not relevant
>to this working group

That is a curiously ad hoc and definitive assertion.  Better still to use 
your own words, it is "plainly wrong".

First, the current, 3 gTLDs came from a process rather broader than 
IANA.  Second, the ccTLDs came from a similar process -- please note that 
deciding to use an independently administered list does not mean that 
ccTLDs "come from" that list.  It's important to distinguish the design 
process. versus the results of that process.

In other words ALL of the TLDs "came from" IANA, so there is nothing useful 
in citing it about a particular subset (schema).

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                       Brandenburg Consulting
Tel: +1.408.246.8253          675 Spruce Drive       Fax: +1.408.273.6464
dcrocker@brandenburg.com   Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA    www.brandenburg.com