Re: [ga] ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Peter Dengate Trush wrote to Joe Sims:
> But step one is for you and ICANN to accept that the cctlds do not operate
> under a licence from ICANN. They operate under a duty to their LIC.

I think that now, since the .us ccTLD has been put back to life,
we will see a better understanding of ccTLD position from the US 
colleagues. There is a clear difference in .us and .com managements,
the former being US matter and duty to their LIC and USG
(actually the USG did not sign any contract with ICANN for its
own space, which was analysed as a good example to follow by
more ccTLDs), the later is an ICANN experiment in devising 
extraterritorial rules for global TLD, and their reinforcement.

My personal interpretation is that for many of our US collegues
there was a confusion between .com (extraterritorial) and .us (USA),
and a kind of perception that US did accept other countries
to influence the .com matters, while they do not get "reciprocity"
for other ccTLD. Now with .us up and running well, they have a
clear, American example of the difference with gTLD.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html