ISO 3166-based Top Level Domain Survey

On Friday, June 19, 1998 10:26 AM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom at manta.outremer.com] wrote:
@
@Hi Jim,
@
@	As far as I'm concerned and WRT TLDs, the "exclusive is bad" applies
@ALWAYS. Having an individual UNILATERALLY and with no consensus decide how
@things are to be done is bad always.

I agree...in the IPv8 Plan there are 8 people that "govern" a TLD in a 2+2+4 Trusteeship.
I will be submitting more details on the IPv8 Plan to the <comments at iana.org> list.

@	In the case of country code TLDs, the population that is going to
@get the service is pretty obvious; in general it will be those
@companies/organisations/individuals located in that specific geographical
@area, and what is important is to try and make sure that it is that
@population that is -in general- happy at the way things are run in that TLD.
@All lovely words of course, but lets see where the problems are...
@It is generally accepted that how a certain ccTLD is governed is a question
@to be answered by the government in place in that place. And whether you
@like it or not, it is ALWAYS the local government that is allowing that TLD
@to be governed in that way. They do it by either actively participating, by
@just letting things happen, or simply by not bothering to intervene. They
@ARE responsible for it though (another thing is arguing about dereliction
@(sp?) of duty... and personally I think ".us" would be a prime candidate).

I am not sure it is fair to create something and then assume
that a country has to step forward to manage it and if they
do not that it is "OK" for someone else to exploit it. Also,
what about 2-letter TLDs that do not seem to have a country ?

.IO comes to mind. Are all of the fish in the Indian Ocean
responsible ?...even if they do not use the Internet...

@Nominet (for ".uk") is generally taken as an example of how to do things.
@However, much as you dislike the way a certain ccTLD is run, if it is not
@for your government, the only way to change it is to get THAT government to
@change it. It's not a question of "can they or can't they?" but rather "will
@they or won't they?"

What percentage of 2-letter TLDs actually have active government involvement ?
Do you consider the .US TLD under U.S. Government control ?

@The fact that countries with flawed corrupt and non-democratic governments
@are part of the U.N. doesn't mean that the U.N. is flawed, corrupt and
@non-democratic. Those countries are not shaming the U.N. in any case, they
@are shaming themselves.
@However, trying to enter into how a foreign government applies its laws (or
@lack of them) and/or how it runs its ccTLD is naive at least.

It sounds to me like you are saying that there will never be any consistency
in the 2-letter TLDs. If this is the case, then I suspect that we will have more
people flocking to the new generic TLDs because it will be likely they can
not trust their local government. In some cases, some of the 2-letter TLDs
may disappear from lack of support or usage.

@Yours, John Broomfield.
@
@P.S. Before you attack me for "exclusive control of ccTLDs", you know very
@well that we operate with full consensus of the local ISPs, and we are
@forming a (very small) non-profit which will operate (albeit in a much
@reduced fashion) to some extent a-la-Nominet.

Sounds like a winner...keep up the good work...

@	In any case, glad you can get some good discussions going every now
@and then. You had me worried... Even so, I'm sure you knew the answers already.
@

I asked Robert Shaw...and you answered...
...so I still do not know Robert Shaw's answers...

@> On Friday, June 19, 1998 10:55 AM, Robert Shaw[SMTP:robert.shaw at itu.int] wrote:
@> @Hi,
@> @
@> @At http://www.itu.int/net/cctlds/nics.htm is a preliminary survey 
@> 
@> Robert,
@> 
@> With so many 2-letter TLDs being operated by people with an exclusive
@> personal interest and little or no association to a country, how do you
@> see the future position of the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE evolving
@> with respect to those TLDs ?
@> 
@> In other words, why are those TLDs exempt from the "exclusive is bad"
@> model that you promote ?
@> 
@> Do you think the new IANA will bring all of the 2-letter TLDs into conformance
@> with the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE model ?
@> 


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@