>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:09:17 -0400 (EDT) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["J. William Semich (NIC >JWS7)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From mail.nu!bsemich Thu Apr 15 09:09:16 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from mail.nu(ns1.usnic.net[199.103.194.129]) (6407 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net > via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe > (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:09:16 -0400 (EDT) > (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18) >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:05:26 EST >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Oppose NSI's redefinition of TLD constituencies >X-Mailer: <IMail v4.06> > >I agree with Patrick's concerns, with additional observations. > >The only "constituency" that would gain from throwing out RFC1591 and >redefining TLDs as being "closed" vs. "open" is Network Solutions Inc. >(NSI). This same wrong-headed change in the current ccTLD structure was >proposed in the WIPO RFC last month, and it must be strongly opposed, >IMHO. > >Most of what would currently be defined as "open" ccTLDs (.ch, .uk, .nz, >.dk, .nu) will probably be forced, for reasons of cost and other >trademark protection considerations, to become closed. Yet NSI will >still be able to come into these "closed" ccTLD's national markets and >sell .com registrations (whether directly, as NSI, or through its new >registrars), and dominate the local market with the strong .com brand. > >Yet the closed ccTLDs will *not* be able to compete with .com outside >the "closed" areas on an international basis. That leaves the >international market free for .com to develop (until new gTLDs are >added, which could be a while), as well as opening every local ccTLD >market to NSI to compete with all their International resources and >millions of marketing dollars on a one-on-one basis. > >It's kind of like telling a local soft drink company in, say, Thailand, >not to sell its beverage in Cambodia or Indonesia, while Coke is allowed >to market in Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia and anywhere else. In small >ccTLD areas, in fact, the local ccTLD may never even have a chance to >get developed... but that's another discussion. > >Even more problematic is the contradictory effect of the "open" vs. >"closed" redefinition of the current ccTLD structure (RFC1591) on the >concept of "sovereignty." > >In effect, a closed vs. open policy says, "You can have 'sovereignty' >over your ccTLD if you agree to obey ICANN's rules. These rules say you >do not have the sovereign right to use your ccTLD outside your own >national or territorial boundaries." That's not the way I define >"sovereignty," regardless of whether you interpret it to mean national >government sovereignty (as some governments believe) or to mean local >internet community sovereignty (as IATLD believes). > >Again, this is a complete reversal of the basis on which the Internet >has grown, as a borderless, global and private networking system. In >addition, it is a complete reversal of the International Trade movement, >exemplified by the EU, toward open borders and free trade. It would >mean, for example, that a company in Europe which wished to register its >company or brand names using the locally-recognized ccTLDs in >Switzerland, the UK, Denmark and Sweden would not be able to anymore >unless it had a corporate presence on the ground in each of those >countries (assuming those ccTLDs decided to become closed due to the >regulatory and cost pressures created by the "open" designation, which I >believe will be the case). This is only one of many results "hidden" in >this NSI-proposed redefinition of the current ccTLD system. > >I've got many other concerns about this approach (not least of which is >my believe that ICANN has no authority, with its "interim" board and no >DNSO or names council, to redefine the structure of the ccTLD space as >it exists right now) and will post a more lengthy comment soon. > >Bottom line, though, I'd say this is not an issue for consideration by >ICANN or any other entity at this time in the process of developing DNSO >and we should continue to move to build a strong and effective ccTLD >constituency of the DNSO, > >Regards, > >Bill Semich (NIC JWS7) >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >.NU Domain >"The un.com-mon Domain" >(competing with NSI's .com) > >In reply to 15 Apr message from "Patrick O'Brien" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>Fay, > >>I certainly have an issue with the definition, or lack of, these >>and other terms commonly used by ICANN. > >>New Zealand's economic envirnoment is based around little >>intervention or regulation. We call it a "light handed" approach >>-- low entry barriers are meant to be pro-competitive (I thought >>that was one of the tenets of the original Green/White Paper >>process). > >>Why should we raise artificial barriers in order to make .nz >>"Closed"? What are the benefits to name holders? Why should they >>be forced to support the additional cost/service delivery >>penalties that may possibly accrue? > >>There is a danger that customer's of ccTLD's will end up with only >>one of two choices for their country domains: > >>1. Closed -- regulated by the Government >>2. Open -- regulated by ICANN > >>What happenned to choice? > >>My regards, > >>Patrick > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Fay Howard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 8:52 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Suggested redefinition of TLD constituencies > >>All, > >>For those who may not have seen it on the Web site, ICANN have >>posed a question about the proposed constituency split between >>gTLDs and ccTLDs which I paste below. > >>ICANN are keen to receive comment on this suggestion that registry >>constituencies be redefined as "open" and "closed". > >>Apologies to CENTR members who have already been made aware of >>this. > > >>Fay Howard >>CENTR Manager > >>**************** from http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsoupdate.html >>************ > >>In order to more fully explore an issue raised by one comment >>submitted in reaction to the draft ICANN Bylaw changes the ICANN >>Board seeks further comment on the following question: > >>Should the initial DNSO Constituencies currently identified as >>"ccTLD registries" and "gTLD registries" be re-categorized as >>"open registries" and "closed registries," identified according to >>whether the registry is open to any registrant, worldwide >>("open"), or is instead limited to certain registrants based on >>geography, intended use, or other criteria ("closed")? > >>Please submit comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ************************************* > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" --Thomas Jefferson
