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

Comments on NSi comments

On TLD constituencies

We believe that the present division among gTLDs and ccTLDs is correct. 

We do not see any reason for classifying TLDs in any other way, as ICANN
may establish a very dangerous precedent, saying, somehow, that a given
ccTLD is no longer under the control of the country is is supposed to be
delegated to.

Different countries have very different policies for delegation of second
or third level domains, some very strict and some very relaxed. We do not
see any relationship between these and the differenciation between gTLDs
and ccTLD constituencies in the DNSO. 

By changing the classification, ICANN would be giving ccTLDs a
representation larger than the one it has already prestablished, allowing
one particular group (ccTLDs) to have more representatives than any other.

On Geopolitical diversity

The reason why the DNSO group has agreed, from the beginning, that all
three Names Council elected members from a constituency must be from
different regions, is to assure geographical diversity without conditioning
elections in one given constituency to the results of elections in another
constituency. Only by assuring regional diversity in each constituency is
it possible to assure diversity and independency of constituencies. The
largest possible number of regions should be considered in each
constituency (for example, Latinamerica should be considered as an
independent region). Any other system would be very complicated to implement.

Javier Sola
European Internet Business Association