On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
>> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
>> effort to deploy into India.
>
> operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
> in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's
> property, investment there by VGRS mby be difficult to justify.
>
> -e
The more telling fallacy here that really speaks to the heart of why I am
dismayed and disappointed by ICANN's management of the whole TLD mess is the
idea that a CCTLD is the property of a TLD operator to begin with.
The .IN TLD is property of the Indian people or worst case, the government of
India acting in their stead. (or at least it should be if ICANN and/or Verisign
and their competitors haven't managed to completely usurp the public trust.
Owen
