Richard Sexton wrote:
>> In particular, these documents specify that the DNSO will include the
>>following initial Constituency Groups:
>>
>> ccTLD registries
>> Commercial and business entities
>> gTLD registries
>
>gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
>registreis" ?
I'm not a fan of the constituency-based model, and herein is another
example where this structure has not been well thought out.
What differentiates ccTLD registries from gTLD registries, except that
authority for the former resides with sovereign nation-states. Clearly
there are some ccTLDs that operate as charter or boutique TLDs, lacking any
residence requirements and using their fortuitous 2-character codes for
market advantage (e.g., .tv, .to, .md).
Why, then, should both these types of TLDs appear as different
constituencies, all the while shoving educational/organizational/non-profit
and personal interests into one grouping?
Reminds me of the camel, which was really a horse designed by a committee.
ICANNmel.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
======================== // =============================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
On the Internet, // \\ no one knows you're a dog.
