In message <B3B34AF18759D011A2C500805FD25AF1018A163A@EMAIL1>, Roberto Gaetano writes:
> 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.
It's not reasonable. It's obvious. NSI of course wants as little
competition as possible for the commercial domains.
> 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.
Patently false. ccTLDs have been ruled on a first come first serve
principle and RFC 1591.
> As such, it was commonly accepted that a different set of rules
> would apply.
Actually that's not really true, because the Internet wasn't the
market it is now.
> 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.
No change is necessary.
> 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).
Agreed.
>
> I fully agree with Don Telage when he writes (see below - taken from
> http://netsol.com/policy/icann427/):
I don't. It's a nicely written proposal to cement NSI's (which will be
shared by the few impending new Registries) monopoly.
It boils down to opening the root to more gTLDs. Whether you call them
open or closed makes no difference.
I do not see the requirement to regulate this. Let the market
decide between .NU and .COM.
el
