[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Bill Semich's " A Critique of NSI's goTLD Constituency Plan" and a comment on small ccTLD's and a trip to Berlin
- To: "'Peter de Blanc'" <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>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "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" <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Joe_Sims@jonesday.com" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>
- Subject: RE: Bill Semich's " A Critique of NSI's goTLD Constituency Plan" and a comment on small ccTLD's and a trip to Berlin
- From: Chris Bull <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 09:54:10 +1100
- Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "HOSTMASTER@NIC.MIL" <HOSTMASTER@NIC.MIL>, "gary.borgoyne@FED.GOV" <gary.borgoyne@FED.GOV>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
This is my first comment on these discussions. I support Peter's position below. I am concerned the smaller countries may lose control of the policy governing their own TLD registries which are starting to generate intended to cross subsidise rural telephone services to the remote islands in the country.
In regard to proxy voting, I cannot responsibly delegate an open proxy to anyone. I would need to know the issue(s) beforehand.
In regard to the overall plan to select a small group of ccTLD members to represent the larger ccTLD community to the DNSO. Unless decisions to change current policy, or develop new policy, are unanimous amongst the wider ccTLD community then I foresee clashes of interest within the group. Here in Vanuatu we have entered into business opportunities based on the existing RFC1591, changes to those guidelines may negatively impact those opportunities, an issue which worries me greatly.
Does anyone share my view ?
Manager Technical Services
Telecom Vanuatu Limited (.VU)
PH: (+678) 23000
FAX: (+678) 23499
From: Peter de Blanc [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 9:36 PM
To: 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
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; HOSTMASTER@NIC.MIL; gary.borgoyne@FED.GOV; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: Bill Semich's " A Critique of NSI's goTLD Constituency Plan" and a comment on small ccTLD's and a trip to Berlin
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.