Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> The gTLD constituency report and cover letter is available at:
>
> http://netsol.com/policy/icann427/
>
Few comments.
First of all, the distinction between "open" and "closed" TLDs vs. "generic"
and "country code" TLDs seem to be reasonable, but should be probably be
discussed in further detail before endorsing this approach.
The problem I see is that, for good or bad, the ccTLDs have been ruled up to
now based on the assumption that the TLD was delegated by (or supervised by,
or sponsored by, or otherwise have a connection with) a national authority.
As such, it was commonly accepted that a different set of rules would apply.
Maybe it is time for a change, but this change cannot be made "before" the
DNSO will be in place, not to mention the fact that the change will lead to
a different composition of the constituencies. My proposal is, therefore, to
leave for the time being the definition of the constituencies as is, i.e.
TLDs that are operating as ISO-3166 countries (or subdivisions thereof), and
TLDs who don't (which includes everybody else).
I fully agree with Don Telage when he writes (see below - taken from
http://netsol.com/policy/icann427/):
Even more important than the formal construct, the interests,
motivations, and perspectives of the registries delegated the open and
closed TLD zones strongly parallel each other. As a constituency, open TLD
zone registries - whether for COM. or MD. - have very common interests and
entrepreneurial behavior. They compete more directly against one another.
Conversely, closed TLD zone registries - whether JP. or MIL. - have common
interests that are very different from open registries, and do not compete
with each other.
>From the business point of view, this makes sense, but because of the fact
that this issue is controversial, I would like to see the DNSO express an
opinion on that before changing the definitions of the constituencies.
Another comment is related to who will participate to the gTLD constituency,
and, to call the problem by its name, the issue of the "perspective
Registries".
It is true that in all other constituencies wie will never allow "potential
future members" to participate. It would not make sense to accept an
organization in the Business constituency on the basis that they "intend to
start up a business sometimes in the future". But the situation of the
"perspective Registries" is clearly different.
In fact, while nobody is prevented from starting an Internet-related
business, and therefore joining the appropriate Constituency thereafter,
this limitation exists for the "perspective Registries". You cannot start a
Registry business for a gTLD that is in the A-Root unless ICANN recognizes
you and delegates you a gTLD that is or will be in the A-Root.
This is a catch-22 situation: if you are not recognized, you cannot join the
constituency, therefore you cannot push for extension of the domain name
space, therefore there will not be ne gTLDs, therefore you will not be in
business, therefore you will not be recognized, .....
Moreover, this problem is one of the very reasons this whole fandango
started: the need (or not) of expanding the domain name space with new
gTLDs, and the need (or not) for competition among "generic" TLD Registries.
It is therefore of the paramount importance to have the voice (as Stef sais,
not necessarily the vote) of the organizations that are bringing forward
concrete proposals in this direction. That is, enterprises like IODesign,
CORE, Iperdome, and so on.
My proposal is therefore to add a place for these type of organizations in
this constituency. The form is open for discussion:
- maybe the participation is not of "full membership", but "observership" or
"associate membership", with reduced power versus NSi;
- maybe this situation will only be allowed for a certain period, until the
DNSO (and ICANN) will not have taken a clear stance on the issue.
Whichever the solution chosen, I believe that to keep the "perspective
Registries" outside the closed door will not help in getting these problems
solved, and will therefore not be beneficial to the Internet, which should
be our major collective concern and the main reason for having this whole
thing going.
Regards
Roberto
P.S. I will start a thread on DNSO.org as well on this subject.
