On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:21:07 +0200, Roberto Gaetano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
No is saying that these days ARE top level domains, that is just
something Dr Lisse has chosen to focus on. The point is that the ccTLD
community must be responsive to the NON-Flat structure of the ccTLDs
themselves.
The managers of actual delegated parts of this namespace are as much a
part of the "ccTLD" community as anyone who directly managers ccTLD
namespace offering names directly under their TLD.
They do not belong in a commercial domain name constituency for this
role, they do not belong in a constituency for "regular" domain
holders at all. Their role and their needs are more closely tied to
the ccTLD constituency.
This failure for those that are forming the ccTLD constituency to
recognize a very important facet of ccTLDs that RFC1591 was so careful
to include in its own definitions and development of a "standard" is
nothing short of prejudicial, to both the managers of these domain
namespaces, as well as to the ccTLD domain name holders who hold
domains under them. For unless these managers have adequate
representation at the ccTLD constituency level, their domain name
holders are at great risk of their interests not being represented.
One cannot compare ibm.net to com.au or per.nu. RFC1591 specifically
recognizes that their exists an UNIQUE situation in the ccTLD
community arising out of the MUCH varied and different structures they
hold. ibm.net was a "registered domain," the domains I am speaking of
here were delegated as an integral part of the ccTLD's namespace
offering, and not as "simple" domain registrations.
Defining a ccTLD in a flat manner was something that Dr Postel avoided
in RFC1591 for a VERY good reason, and to try and redefine it now
would be not only dangerous, but an injustice.
--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
NSI & Internic news http://www.dso.net/internic/
