-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Roberto,
I agree with many of your assertions. That is the guiding reason
behind the formation of the TLDA. I would invite you and others to
participate in the TLDA as it fully forms.
Gene Marsh
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 9:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] gTLD registry constituency
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBNycrXZHtPfG6xLnPEQKNgwCcDKuLfeChL6r75z6jm7/uUvEZMC4AoK4f
LgDkExOa/RWJhd75wkTE1dEx
=gMmT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
