I knew nothing of the country of Tuvalu, until it was marketed through
.tv. I receive a third of my news from the United Kingdom because
of .uk and the list goes on.
It is as though an antagonism toward commercialization is the underlying
impetus of this RFC. Or in alternative it is the revenue enhancement
via charges.
I believe the absence of examples of problems, caused by the marketed
ccTLDs, was so glaring that it overshadowed the positive perspective.
I do not see a compelling argument being made for further regulation other
than the ccTLDs being expected to pay for services they receive. I cite
http://www.wwtld.org/ongoing/funding/FY1999-2000.ccTLD-ICANN-contributions.html
as an example of one area operating within the function of ICANN which
is working well.
It would be good to note here that of all constituencies within the
DNSO it appears that the ccTLD is the most interested in education and
obtaining stake holder involvment. The current "groups and committees"
reviewing process within ICANN would do well to look for examples with
the operation of this constituency.
While I believe the RFC is well thought out, forward thinking and quite
educational, I would urge great caution in asserting any control over Country's
operations of their ccTLDs. I believe we should view their operation
as closely akin to sovereignty as possible.
Dear Mr. Klensin,
I read your RFC 3701 in
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3071.txt
1. if I read you correctly you advocate for ccTLDs to be parallel to
the iCANN while you use wording establishing the IANA as a ruler for them.
Where does the legitimacy of the ccTLD come from according you (i.e. what
does the IANA has to do with ccTLDs) ?
2. you do not address the real world situation where iCANN (not IANA)
wants to make some money in studying TLDs applications and where there
are a few scores of augmented root TLDs. And a first real business take
away (the iCANN taking ".biz" business from ARNI to give it to JVStream)
and a total lack of consideration for the ".bz" ccTLD and the State of
Belize which has not even been consulted while its commercial strategy
is to be a shortcut for ".biz".
Don't you fear that the audience that an "RFC" may have (even if it
is only a well construed private comments) may lead to a situation where
iCANN - calling on GAC as they currently do, and subject to Congress hearings
for a possible US legislation - will be more and more the USNIC, while
the ccTLD will grow independently from the iCANN and many new NICs will
emerge from the will of entrepreneurs or from user groups (according to
RFC.902/Multiorganization).
Your positions are being used to that end anyway.
IMHO we may need the iCANN to survive as a TLD registry and a liaison
platform. We also need a DNSO like structure for operation/policy related
inter-TLD relations. We may also need the ccTLDs as a structuring TLD worldwide
network. To retain them within the iCANN, the iCANN is to be of some real
use to them and to the community. It must also be structurally associated
to them, i.e. the ccTLDs association. Otherwise we will see the entire
network forgetting about iCANN and about many ccTLDs while learning about
millions of TLDs (as introduced to the GAC by the iCANN board).
Your comments welcome.
Jefsey Morfin
Chair, france@large
jefsey@wanadoo.fr
PS. This issue being of real interest to the WG-Review I copy this mail
to that list.