William Walsh wrote:
> com.au and per.nu and other RFC1591 delegated ccTLD subdomains have as
> much right to the ccTLD constituencies as the .NO registry does.
>
To the best of my knowledge, a TLD is a Domain that is at the highest level
(hence the name) in the Domain Name system tree.
I assume that we can also define it as an entry in the Root.
This is not the case for com.au.
This said, Jay may raise a legitimate problem, which is representation of
administrators of domain space of level >1 (SLD, 3LD, ...).
For example, .it is (also) subdivided geographically, with delegation of
some "pure geographical branches" to separate entities (re:
http://www.nic.it/NA/rulesnac.html, para. C.2.6). This means, of course,
that the same right for representation holds for the 20 Regions, ~100
Provinces, 9000+ townships, wherever a separate authority exists.
Of course, this holds also for all companies that use a SLD furtherly
subdivided, like IBM (ibm.com is subdivided in xx.ibm.com - see
http://www.ibm.com/planetwide/ and check the hyperlinks in the "home pages"
column).
While these people can indeed bring added value to the discussion, their
inclusion in either the ccTLD or gTLD constituency does not seem
appropriate, unless we redefine the scope of the constituencies to include
Domains other than Top Level.
Another possibility is to foresee a specific constituency for these folks:
there seemed to be rough consensus in the discussions within the DNSO for a
dynamic approach to constituencies, and for sure there's no reason for
considering 7 as a "magic number" that has not to be modified, provided that
there's a real need.
Maybe a good starting point is to check how many administrators of UTTLDs
(Underneath The Top Level Domains ;>)) feel the need for representation in
DNSO in such a way.
Regards
Roberto
