[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [IATLD Members] Bill Semich's " A Critique of NSI's goTLD Constituency Plan" and a comment on small ccTLD's and a trip to Berlin
- To: Members@IATLD.ORG
- Subject: RE: [IATLD Members] Bill Semich's " A Critique of NSI's goTLD Constituency Plan" and a comment on small ccTLD's and a trip to Berlin
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 04:05:14 -0400
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <HOSTMASTER@NIC.MIL>, <gary.borgoyne@FED.GOV>, <email@example.com>, <members@IATLD.ORG>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: <000301be9619$dccd6670$4bb71bd0@PROFIT>
- References: <199905022110.AA70910908@mail.nu>
- Sender: email@example.com
I guess you feel that joining an Open TLD
Constituency would force you to subscribe to
the same policies as an Open *g*TLD. Given
these assumptions, I agree with your conclusion.
I was looking at it from a different perspective,
however. If the 90 or so Open ccTLDs are lumped
together with the other 150 ccTLDs, then the Open
ccTLDs will be a minority in their own constituency.
That means that they may not get to elect
members to the Names Council, and that means that
they are less likely to be protected from any of
the decisions that are handed down from on high.
Maybe the best solution would be for a seperate
Open ccTLD Constituency.
But I guess this just highlights the poor job
ICANN is doing in providing the ground rules for
this arbitrary constituency structure, a structure
that seems unworkable at best.
At 06:35 AM 5/4/99 , Peter de Blanc wrote:
>This posting is to lend support to the ideas so clearly and concisely
>presented by Bill Semich.
>Also, the (potential) defining and lumping of (open) ccTLD's into the class
>of "generic TLD's"
>is NOT appropriate. It is a mechanism, in part, to excercise control over a
>country's registry's internal policy.
>Neither is the idea of taking ICANN/DSNO funding requirements and dividing
>them by the number of ccTLD's to come up with some number, like $ 10,000 per
>Here in the Virgin Islands, we have a total population of about 100,000
>people on 5 islands. Revenues
>from domain name registration services support the V.I.P. FreeNet, which
>provides free basic Internet
>services to those who can't afford commercial connections. ( see
>http://www.usvi.net/cobex/inet95/ ). The FreeNet relies on corporate
>contributions and personal donations to sustain its operations.
>There is no way that this organization can pay $ 10,000 a year.
>Having worked for 5 years as a Technology Consultant for the United Nations
>Industrial Development Organization on missions to places like Guyana, I
>know that countries with unconvertable currency, lack of hard currency, and
>a totally different standard of living can not pay this kind of money.
> Network Solutions, and the powerful interest groups involved in generic
>TLD's like .COM or some of the new ones coming on-stream can fight it out
>for world domination in the marketplace all they want.
>They should leave well enough alone when it comes to a small country ccTLD.
>Obviously, we need to operate under a common technical framework. But then,
>we always have, by the RFC's on DNS, and by common sense.
>When it comes to the policy of a ccTLD, that should be set in-country
>without outside influence.
>I intend to go to Berlin and speak out for the small ccTLD's that share this
>Peter de Blanc for .VI
> nic handle PJD6
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of J.
>William Semich (NIC JWS7)
>Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 10:11 PM
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
>email@example.com; H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl; firstname.lastname@example.org;
>email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Joe_Sims@jonesday.com
>Cc: email@example.com; HOSTMASTER@NIC.MIL; gary.borgoyne@FED.GOV;
>Subject: A Critique of NSI's goTLD Constituency Plan
>I have read the Network Solutions proposal to "self organize" the gTLD
>constituency of the DNSO (see http://netsol.com/policy/icann427/) and I
>am greatly concerned by its lack of responsiveness to the ICANN
>constituency formation process.
>In effect, NSI is turning the process on its head and creating its own
>definition of the gTLD constituency, which it has redefined as the
>"Generic Open TLD Registry" constituency. By doing so, it is excluding
>the current gTLDs it does not manage or control - .EDU, .INT, .GOV,
>.ARPA and .MIL - and is making the specious assumption that it is the
>only arbiter of what a gTLD really is.
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com