Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> However, if you're saying that the ICANN's role with regard to ccTLDs is
> limited to encouraging compliance with relevant RFCs, then we are close to
> agreement.
Good.
> But presumably with regard to gTLDs you think that ICANN's
> involvement should be more broad, going beyond the RFCs.
As I've said about 50 times, I recognize no distinction in this regard between
ccTLDs and gTLDs. A TLD is a TLD, as far as ICANN is concerned.
> For instance, you
> probably wouldn't condone ICANN allowing a small cartel of registrars fixing
> prices for gTLD domain names.
I personally wouldn't like that, but if a country's national policy is that the
registrar business should be a cartel, within their boundaries, then it has
nothing to do with ICANN and it isn't an issue for this list. As you probably
know, there are many countries that limit the number of ISPs to one or two and
there are still many national telephone monopolies. This is an area of national
policy, where sovereignty really does matter.
> Yet presumably you wouldn't (because you
> haven't) complained about the same behavior occurring in ccTLDs (UAE, for
> instance). gTLDs and ccTLDs are different, and they should be handled
> differently by ICANN.
I would oppose such a policy in both cases. And in both cases ICANN would have
exactly the same power: very little. If, for example, there are 100 new "g"TLDs
created and the government of Burma decides that in their country the Burma NIC
has the exclusive authority to register names in all of them, there's absolutely
nothing ICANN can do, or I can do, or doobee doobee doo....
Like Jim, you seem to be laboring under the assumption that gTLDs will be
creatures of ICANN. I think that idea died with the gTLD-MoU, or at least I hope
it did. Registries will be businesses, and as such they will have contractual
obligations and rights. ICANN's job is simply to allow for the entry of these
businesses in ways that allow the root to be coordinated, nothing more.
> And gTLDs, while they may
> specialize into a chartered TLD, are nonetheless international,
...as are ALL ccTLDs, even tho they may "specialize" in users who fall within a
particular national boundary
> and won't exclude a registrant because of his or her residence.
Same as about 75 ccTLDs, as you of all people know well.
> The concerns of their
> users are therefore global.
Non sequitur
> It would be fruitless to tell the market anything, and I didn't.
Yes, you did, and continue to do so. See below:
> In any case, the market niche wouldn't be
> based on geography -- the ccTLDs already have that covered.
Wrong. Think of ".asia," ".tibet", .<chinese characters standing for the Hokkien
ethnicity>,and otherwise use your imagination. ccTLDs are probably the ugliest,
leasst attractive semantic identifiers one could think of. There is room for
hundreds of geographical, cultural, ethnic, family categories.
> Or maybe you
> think there should be a .CHINA as well as .CN?
I think if someone wants to start it, can put up the money, and retain enough
paying customers to make a go of it, yes, there should be a .china.
> Do you suppose that the
> reaction of the Chinese gov't would be trivial then.
The reaction would not be favorable, but there are many things that happen in
the world that the Chinese government doesn't like, including this conversation.
China could block that TLD if it wanted to. Are you saying that the Chinese
government "owns" the character string ".china" and has a sovereign right to
determine how it becomes visible on the global Internet? I don't think that
position is defensible, but if you like it I suggest that you join INTA and form
the "hard-core caucus" -- with the motto, "the corporations are too soft, let's
turn over ownership of the English language to dictators."
But seriously, that kind of an example is precisely why I and other enlightened
members of this discourse are strenuously opposing this newly invented link
between the name space and "sovereignty."
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
