Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?

People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, companies and in some cases governments with care. This is not necessarily the case. In my opinion, the 2 letter TLDs should be treated as generic tags and should not be given a pass when it comes to requirements for stable governance and operational excellence. If this is not done, consumers may be mislead that 2 letter TLDs have the same industry oversight via the IANA Inc. and self-regulation. Consumers may find that they are subjected to arbitrary policies, predatory price increases and shoddy operations unless they are warned that 2 letter TLDs are immune from IANA Inc. oversight. This will not be a good thing and may cause well-run 2 letter TLDs to suffer because of the unsatisfactory practices of a few, poorly managed 2 letter TLDs. Of course, part of the problem is defining what poorly managed means. In some parts of the world business practices may be tolerated that are not common in the U.S. For example, people may choose to discriminate based on a variety of reasons. One of the most obvious is that companies supporting the government obtain <SLD>.TLD registrations and those that do not are excluded. Much of this assumes that the government is the current delegate of the 2 letter TLDs. As the domain name debates rage on we find more and more that governments do not have a clue what is happening with the 2 letter TLD that was supposedly delegated to them. Instead, we find that the 2 letter TLDs have been casually delegated to people and companies that gave the right impression of representing the government or local people but who actually use the TLD for their own business purposes. None of these things can be easily fixed and there may be no need to fix them IF the consumer is alerted to this situation. Unfortunately, the Green Paper and the IANA Inc. might end up sending the wrong message if they require generic TLDs to be held to one standard while 2 letter TLDs are immune. In my opinion, all of the TLDs should be held to the same high standards of business ethics and operational integrity as agreed upon by the Registry Industry. The question remains as to how to do this...? To date much of the focus has been on ADDING TLDs to the legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. Government supports. Before TLDs are added, there may have to be a review of the existing TLDs to see where they stand from a business ethics and operational standards point of view. In some cases, 2 letter TLDs may need to be removed from the legacy Root Name Servers. How this should be handled needs to be debated by the people actively involved in the Registry Industry. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 22:47:06 MET DST 1998 ---------

Hi Jim,
People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, companies and in some cases governments with care. This is not necessarily the case.
Resume of rest of message just to save space (If I've got it wrong, just say so): National TLDs should be regulated in the same way as gTLDs because not all of them are functioning correctly. I disagree VERY strongly. I think there are few areas where one can say there is high consensus (not just general or rough) in the DNS area, but one of these rare areas is that most people agree that 2 letter (or national) TLDs are a local matter, where local means the area described by the 2 letters in ISO-3166. The unwritten (is it not yet official?) addendum to RFC-1591 gives ultimate authority in 2 letter TLDs to the government of that area. This in fact means that the local government is sovereign for how any given 2 letter TLD is run. Oh, so you don't like how .cn is run? Do you think China would accept someone from outside telling them what to do with it? Maybe you dislike Tonga running ".to" as a "how-to" TLD? Trying to interfere with how separate 2 letter TLDs are run is like trying to impose how each country should run it's census or it's telephone system. However, drawing up a set of specifications which are DESIRABLE and RECOMENDABLE is probably a very good idea, and would go a long way in solving the problems you pointed out. I feel however that enforcement and/or regulation should be left out of it. Yours, John Broomfield. GP & MQ NIC -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 23:07:02 MET DST 1998 ---------

In concept - I agree with you Jim. But in realistic application, I agree with you John:) It is a matter of "You can't tell me how to run the Registry for my country." - just wouldn't go over well in the very countries that may be mismanaging their registry. Now, making a statement of registry guidelines and recommendations, that is good idea. How do we proceed?
However, drawing up a set of specifications which are DESIRABLE and RECOMENDABLE is probably a very good idea, and would go a long way in solving the problems you pointed out. I feel however that enforcement and/or regulation should be left out of it.
Yours, John Broomfield. GP & MQ NIC
Regards Steve Heflin Domain Bank, Inc. IDomains, Inc. -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 23:24:29 MET DST 1998 ---------
participants (3)
-
jbroom@manta.outremer.com
-
JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net
-
steve@domainbank.net