Jim Dixon wrote:
> IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA
> assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy
> regarding gTLDs.
Not true. IANA assumed that it had the power to create >NEW< gTLDs.This assumption
was dashed twice, by the way. Draft-postel was never implemented.
The gTLD-MoU was never implemented. I guess it really didn't have that authority,
now did it?
> It was very clear at all times that IANA understood
> that it had no power over ccTLDs. Postel chose, very wisely, to adopt
> a policy of deference to the relevant sovereign government.
Again, untrue. Postel gave the right to run the ccTLD to the first person who
applied. Only in cases of conflict was there any deference. I'm sure he would have
used the same "common sense" deference if two people from the University of
California or the Mitre Corporation came to him claiming to be the system
administrator for either of those institutions' domains.
> More like, "do what you like with the gTLDs, but use common sense
> when dealing with the ccTLDs".
>
> Were ICANN to attempt to assert authority over the ccTLD registries,
> the minimal result would be that they would quietly ignore ICANN's
> "regulations". A more likely result is an international uproar and
> the elimination of ICANN.
Jim's insistence that there is any basis for a policy distinction between ccTLDs
and gTLDs is a transparent canard. Read Jim's paragraph above. Now substitute the
word "NSI" for "ccTLD registries" and a singular pronoun for the plural. Think
about the result.
Cheerio,
--MM
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
