[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Jim Fleming]

If you are talking about the "toy" IPv4 Internet, you have
to consider that ICANN has three (3) parts, PSO, ASO and DSO
plus the ICANN Staff that runs the show. One could hope that
this makes for a 25% distribution of decision-making. That has not
proven to be the case. As for the ccSO, they are buried in the 25%
that maybe the DSO is allocated. That is probably closer to 3.33%
if you consider that the ICANN Staff calls 90% of the shots. With
3 loud voices advocating the ccSO, that boils down to maybe 1%
per person. Some people are willing to fly around the world for years
to debate their 1%, others have better things to do with their lives.

With IPv8, there are 2,048 equal TLD seats, in 8 regions. It is very
diverse. Yes, Region 0 has certain legacy advantages and is also the
home of .COM, .NET, .ORG, .BIZ and .WEB. The problem we
are now faced with is that there are more TLDs active than the 2,048
slots accommodate. That means that many of the ccTLDs have to be
moved away from the Exclusive Root, to IPv16 networks. That makes
them less likely to gain any marketshare. The ccTLDs which have
progressed, such as .TV, .AM, .FM, .MD, .CC, etc. will of course
remain on people's radar screens as we move forward into 2002.

This may help...
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
http://www.RepliGate.net

The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
http://netfilter.samba.org

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <kent at songbird.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO


> I am also skeptical of a ccSO proposal, although for
> very different reasons. But there are also reasons to
> favor it. It depends on the alternatives.
> 
> Unlike Crispin, who views them as a special interest,
> I view the ccTLDs as basically registries, not much
> different from Neulevel or Verisign. In quite a few
> cases they are also registrars. So their fundamental
> economic interests are very much in line with the
> so-called "suppliers." 
> 
> The ccSO's argue against this position by pointing 
> out that most cc's have governance structures 
> imposed on them that make them more representative 
> of a defined internet community in a country. This 
> argument has some merit. Even Louis Touton 
> proposes to treat them as "sponsored" TLDs
> in his contractual scheme. 
> However, even if ccTLDs are representative 
> of a national Internet community (some are
> not) they are still fundamentally registries.
> 
> If ccTLDs were required to provide full 
> representation to user groups and individual
> domain name holders then a ccSO makes
> sense. If we just take the existing ccTLD
> constituency and make it into a SO, I would
> oppose it.
> 
> A more long term issue: as the TLD space expands 
> I expect the domain registration share of ccTLDs 
> to shrink. Then they might be overrepresented
> in ICANN's structure if we give them their own
> SO. Like the telephone monopolies in ITU, they
> might try to structure DNS regulations in ways
> that would preserve their market share.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>