[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Open vs. closed TLD registries

To: list@ifwp.org
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@dns.list>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Discussion of Constituency Formation
Cc: comment-so@icann.org

1) GTLD Constituancy

So whats the deal here, do I just set up the mailing list and invite
everybody to join and ask ICANN to post a notice about this ?

2) open vs. closed domains.

By George I think they've got it.

In a nutshell, .com and .int and gtlds and .ca and .nu are
"country code" [1] tlds. But, .com and .nu have more in 
common with each other than say .com and .int.

That is, .com and .nu are open domains - anybody can register
in them, while .ca and .int are closed domains in that you must
meet certain criteria for registration in those zones; not just
anybody can get a .ca or .int domain; these are condidered to
be "closed"

These "closed" domains have over the years also been called
"charterded" tlds.

[1] They aren't really country code tlds, as at least one (.UK)
is not the country code for the United Kingdom, .GB is. They
aren't ISO domains either as .UK is not the ISO code for the
UK. Technically they're "two letter domains that have traditionally
represent countries" but ignore that pedantic view :-) and sloppily
call them cctlds.

At 02:13 PM 4/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
>>registreis" ?
>Constituencies are supposed to self-define, so it means what the group 
>decides it means. From what I've read on the lists, there is support for 
>including "prospective registries."
>ICANN has asked for comment, however, on whether the gTLD and ccTLD 
>distinction should be dropped in favor of an "open TLD" and "closed TLD" 
>distinction. See below.
>     -- Bret
>>From http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsoupdate.html
>Further Comment Requested:
>In order to more fully explore an issue raised by one comment submitted 
>in reaction to the draft ICANN Bylaw changes the ICANN Board seeks 
>further comment on the following question:
>Should the initial DNSO Constituencies currently identified as "ccTLD 
>registries" and "gTLD registries" be re-categorized as "open registries" 
>and "closed registries," identified according to whether the registry is 
>open to any registrant, worldwide ("open"), or is instead limited to 
>certain registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria 
>Please submit comments to comment-so@icann.org. 

richard@dns.list    sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
               --Thomas Jefferson

"How gratifying for once to know... that those up above
will serve those down below" - S. Todd
richard@vrx.net  "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0