On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> owen,
>
> at several points you assert that gtlds are "global", which i suggest is an
> error on your part.
>
TLDs come in two flavors.
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains records for entities
not restricted
to a particular geographical area.
CCTLD -- Country Code Top Level Domain -- A domain which is under the control
of a particular
national government represented by the corresponding 2-letter ISO
country code.
The G in GTLD is Global... I'm not asserting anything, it's flat out in the
term.
> gtlds are whatever the controlling contract (icann) requires, and that
> currently lacks an external to the point of service performance measurement,
> and whatever the registrants require, with some filtering through the
> marginal interests of registrars.
>
Your point being?
> the icann contract for the .cat registry is "sponsored", and the interest of
> the registry, and its registrants, is marginal outside of catalonia.
>
Interest in .cat may or may not be marginal. Doesn't matter. The nature of any
policy regarding GTLDs is that it relates to more GTLDs
than just ".cat". GTLDs are, by definition, global in scope on the internet and
any policy about them should be viewed in that light.
> the icann contract for some municipality or region, assuming the new gtld
> program results in new contracts, may be "standard" or "community-based", but
> the intersts of the registry, and its registrants, may also be marginal
> outside of that municipality or region.
>
Your point being?
> you can decide for yourself if your preference for the policy and profit
> margins for .nyc are controlling, or if the preferences of the city
> administration, the registry operator, and, using either the .cat or the .nl
> rates of adoption, a quarter of a million or four million new yorkers are
> controlling.
>
First, I think giving all of these random things a GTLD to begin with is an
absurd process fraught with peril to satisfy
ICANN's greed. However, that's not my decision.
If ICANN is going to move forward with this mess, the least we can do is try to
have consistent policy for all GTLDs.
While I recognize that ICANN lacked the foresight to make it possible to apply
updated technical requirements
to existing GTLD operators until their contract comes up for renewal, that is
no reason we should not have
reasonable and current requirements for new GTLDs.
> if there is a registry the operations for which you are familiar enough to
> discuss, we can discuss the necessity and utility of a v6 reachibility
> requirement, though the prior to delegation requirement is unique to the
> proposed contract for new registries.
>
All operators should be required to support IPv6. If ICANN had done their job
properly, this requirement would
be applied to existing operators too. Unfortunately, ICANN dropped the ball and
the contracts don't allow that.
The fact that ICANN dropped the ball on existing registries isn't a reason to
drop the ball on new ones.
Owen
