[ncdnhc-discuss] TLDs not created by ICANN: the purposes ofraising concerns

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Marc:

I think you raise valid concerns.

1. Legitimacy:  I personally consider that ICANN has legitmacy.  It is
my believe that all those organizations that applies for membership in
ICANN constituencies is because they believe that ICANN is legimit.  If
not...why to be a member of a constituency?   

2.  Natural competition with Alternate TLDs:  Yes, there is competition
between such TLDs...I can select .TRAVEL or .VIAJES, but only one
company is offering it and has the totall monopoly of both TLDs.  And
the Registrars are suppoused to offer
such TLDs and they cannot have access to offer them.

3.  Censorship on the TLD level:  Marc, I am not requesting a censorship
neither making laws to make certain practices illegal. What I am calling
is to join efforts to offer the stability and transparency etc, etc,
etc...inside the Domain Name Space to the Internet Community.  I
personally think that if DNSO join efforts with ICANN Board in order to
stablish an Action Plan on how to do this while at the same time
achieves the diversity in the domain name space that all we are
expecting for, then the practice of going outside ICANN (which is not an
illegal practice, and I don't expect the law be involved in this issue)
will decrease.  

Best Regards
Vany



Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, at 22:51 [=GMT-0400], Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> 
> > Dear Fellows:
> >
> > Due to the recent concerns about issues raised by me regarding "TLDs not
> > created by ICANN..." in the NC agenda, the below text
> > is the explanation of the purpose of the inclusion of such a subject,
> > which it is, indeed the develop of the what I want to say during the NC
> > teleconference.
> >
> > The purpose to raise concerns in the Names Council about "TLDs not
> > created by ICANN..." is to create an awareness of how
> > such business is affecting in several ways the sectors represented by
> > all DNSO Constituencies and all Registrants, to point out the
> > risks that can imply to welcome companies that offers such TLDs who
> > bypassed ICANN Process, how unfair is this (the business of offering
> > TLDs not created by ICANN) for our DNSO partners in constituencies as
> > gTLDs, ccTLDs and Registrars (no competitiveness since such TLDs only
> > can be offered by the company that promotes them)
> 
> This sounds ridiculous to me. ICANN operates a market of
> scarcity. Competition was artificially introduced into this at a new
> level, that of the registrar. In alt TLDs there is natural competition
> on the registry level. If you don't like .LOW (free, by the way), you
> can go for .SHOP.
> 
> > since they are making
> > their efforts to always be in good standing with ICANN processes while
> > others are not...How this could obligates ISPs if they eventually
> > doesn't changes
> > their configuration files of their DNS server in order to meet customer
> > demands...To point out how Businesses and Non-Commercial sectors are
> > affected since such constituencies cannot watch the interests of such
> > sectors properly if any policy or even technical issue regarding Domain
> > Names inside such TLDs not created by ICANN is addressed in the
> > DNSO...To point out how the Registrant doesn't have any guarantees
> > neither have a place to complain inside the ICANN structure (as, for
> > example, that ICANN recieves complaints of Registrants about Registrars
> > by giving a following up of such complaints)...
> 
> How interesting a point. I thought this was one of the things that did
> not work very well: complaining to ICANN. By the way, how about this
> INFO mess? DNS is still *not* up for most domains registered during
> landrush and after, at least not for those that I know about. Has
> anyone one that I can look at, which was not done through Tucows (who
> also wrote the registry software...)? (I do not mean sunrise names,
> they do work). So stability? I have never seen a more unstable TLD.
> 
> > All of these in order to
> > raise an awareness that the NC members recognize the importance of all
> > of these in order that be addressed in each constituency so every
> > constituency comes up with positions regarding this way to attempt to
> > expand Domain Names space without following the proper process given by
> > ICANN.
> >
> > Also to remind them that, at the end, the damage is done to the
> > Registrant who is trusting that such TLDs are legimit TLDs as .COM,
> > .ORG, .NET, .BIZ, .INFO, etc...
> 
> Why do you not worry about the legitimicy of ICANN? Work on that, and
> people will be happy to participate in the ICANN process.
> 
> > And finally to make a call to ICANN through DNSO to all work together in
> > how we can find a solution to stop the disemination of this practice in
> > order to offer a Domain Name Space that keeps its stability,
> > transparency and confuseless that until now, had being achieved.
> 
> Censorship on the TLD level? Are you serious? Do you think outlawing
> alt TLDs will make ICANN more legitimate?
> 
> > Any attempt to expand the Domain Names Space without the ICANN
> > Coordination/Requirements is an attempt to disrupt the stability of the
> > Domain Name Space
> 
> Repeating this often does not make it true.
> 
> > and also is bypassing all of those people, groups and
> > organizations that in good will is participating and following ICANN
> > guidelines and requirements for a better Coordination of the Domain
> > Names Space of the Internet.
> 
> The legitimicy of ICANN again...
> 
> --
> Marc at Schneiders.ORG
> 
> http://www.dot-low.net/ Free Domains in .LOW.

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa