On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 09:38:22PM +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
[...]
> >
> > This will be a show-stopper for most gTLDs.
>
> Come on, Chris, the only significant existing gTLDs are those controlled by
> NSI. The would-be gTLD registries have been protesting with all their
> might for the last few years; no one would much notice any new protests.
And more than that -- NSI is a regulated monopoly under contract to
the USG. That contract is planned, under amendment 11, to be
transferred to ICANN under terms to be negotiated. That is totally
different from the situation with any existing ccTLD. Furthermore,
it does give an opportunity for binding regulation over the only
existing gTLDs. Furthermore, new gTLDs will have to enter into
binding contracts with ICANN.
Reality is that ccTLDs have been dealt with differently, and they will
continue to be dealt with differently, than the ccTLDs. That is
Reality with a capital R. It makes no difference whatsoever if
Chris finds it a show-stopper.
ccTLDs have a more interesting conundrum. They don't want to submit
to ICANN regulation. But on the other hand, they want ICANN to
endorse rfc1981 to give ccTLDs some protection against their
associated sovereignties. Of course, if I were ICANN I know how I
would handle this :-)
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
