Willie,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, William X. Walsh writes:
> 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.
English is only my second language, but I do not understand this
sentence.
> The point is that the ccTLD community must be responsive to the
> NON-Flat structure of the ccTLDs themselves.
No, the point is not that.
There is *NO* ccTLD community. Each ccTLD is on its own and no other
can speak for it. Being responsive has nothing to do with the issue at
hand, which is the one of constituencies.
> 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.
And? The issue is that Iperdome.com as the Manager of per.NU wants to
be in the ccTLD constituency. And the point is that Iperdome.com can
not be in this constituency.
> 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.
Say's who?
Iperdome is just no ccTLD Manager for which the ccTLD constituency is
designed.
> 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.
Nonsense. First RFC1591 has nothing to do with constituencies and
secondly the constituency is for the Domain Managers, not for the
users
> One cannot compare ibm.net to com.au or per.nu.
Why not? Because it doesn't fit your view?
> RFC1591 specifically recognizes that their exists an UNIQUE
> situation in the ccTLD community arising out of the MUCH varied and
> different structures they hold.
In a totally different context, if at all.
> 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.
That's nothing but crap.
> 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.
Now you are mind reading after the fact? Nobody has any incling why
he did what he did.
And nobody, but you, is redefining anything.
You can whine and whine and whine, and remove all those addresses from
the CC list so they don't see you directly discrediting yourself, but
the fact remains, the ccTLD constituency is for Country Top Level
Domain Managers, and Iperdome is not it.
el
