Personal tools
You are here: Home InternetNZ Activity International Archive cctld990507discussion.txt

From: Ed Sweeney []
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 11:22 AM
To: Chris Bull; 'Mike Lawrie'; John Charles Broomfield
Subject: RE: [Executive summary] ccTLDs, DNSO, ICANN


On a superficial level that view represents the simplest and cleanest
method of dealing with this problem. It would be nice if we could rely on
the assumptions which are implicit in the formation of that sort of
viewpoint on the matter.

The difficulty is that the DNSO is a supporting organisation - it doesn't
have ultimate control over ccTLDs at all. Ultimate authority rests with
ICANN. At this stage ICANN is not a body which clearly represents the
interests of anyone. Formation of a rigid framework is rapidly proceeding
without full representation of relevant groups.

IANA has done a great job and one might be inclined to dismiss these
changes as merely 'confirming IANAs role in a more formal sense'. That
would be an artificial viewpoint. The ICANN is, as we have seen from the
white paper through to today, largely driven by interests external to
The input to the ICANN from GAC and other bodies is intended to
destabilise the existing infrastructure and processes which everyone has
accepted to date.

The fact that the GAC was ever formed should ring an alarm bell. What
input do these Governments expect to have in this process? Are they there
to preserve the working solutions we have today? Obviously not. They
have a revolutionary agenda.

Their role in this process is also patently ridiculous. It is obvious
that they do not understand issues relating to the Internet broadly and
specifically to ccTLD / gTLD administration. GAC is largely driven by the
Australian 'National Office of the Information Economy'. That is the same
body whose representatives have publicly spoken out supporting Internet
censorship and the proposition that Australian ISPs should filter the
entire content of the Internet in accordance with directives issued from
the Office of Film and Literature classification. How? There was no
solution proposed - it would be the responsibility of an Australian ISP to
make designated content and entire sites inaccessible.

It is obvious that they do not possess even the most cursory understanding
of the manner in which the Internet works. Nor do they have any respect
for the processes which are in place today, the legacy Jon has left us and
the current state of play. They have assumed that they know best, when in
fact they just know less.

I would like to share your view however I have real and legitimate
concerns with this process generally and with the GAC in particular.

Ed Sweeney

At 08:42 AM 5/7/99 , Chris Bull wrote:
>We obviously need this new ccTLD group to guide and make
>to the DNSO. As I see it we have no choice but to move forward. I get
>back to my original proposal, that the core ccTLD group will only take
>unanimous decisions to the DNSO, unanimous decisions which have been
>voted on by the entire ccTLD membership. In that way the status quo, as
>per RFC1591 is guaranteed, unless we all agree there is good reason to
>change. Reasons which will be good for all ccTLDs. As long as the DNSO
>cannot make any policy changes without unanimous support from the ccTLD
>community everything should be ok.
>Am I over-simplifying this ?
>Chris Bull
>Manager Technical Services
>Telecom Vanuatu Limited
>PH: (+678) 23000
>FAX: (+678) 23499
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Lawrie []
>Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 8:10 AM
>To: John Charles Broomfield
>Subject: Re: [Executive summary] ccTLDs, DNSO, ICANN
>John Charles Broomfield wrote:-
>> As far as the ccTLDs go, you could say that in general terms there
>> isn't a problem, however we all know that ".com" is getting more and
>> more crowded and getting the "" that you want is getting
>> more and more difficult (what was the count? nearly 3 million .com
>> names at present?), and companies are finding that their first choice
>> is hardly every available, nor is their second, nor is.... and they are
>> settling for less than perfect names. A discussion has been going on
>> for around 3-5 years now on how to add extra generic TLDs (like .info
>> or .shop or .web ...), and this discussion has been VERY aggresive.
>So, .com has a problem. ccTLDs by and large do not have this problem.
>Someone is saying "don't let the ccTLDs allow any potential .com customer
>use their (the ccTLD's) domain, and punish them (the ccTLDs) if they do".
> Ie, let the .com problem fester rather than be alleviated by
>entrepreneurial ccTLDs.
>By and large, ccTLDs are solving their own problems, maybe well and
>maybe badly, but that is an internal matter for folk in each particular
>country to sort out, not for anyone else to interfere in unless asked,
>particularly those who cannot solve their own problems.
>I don't see the logic in making the .com problem become a problem for
>I don't see the logic in prohibiting ccTLDs from alleviating the .com
>Mike Lawrie, Phone: +27 12 481-4148
>Manager:UNINET, Fax: +27 12 349-1179
>National Research Foundation, <>
>P O Box 2600, Pretoria 0001 South Africa

Document Actions