[governance] Countries and ccTLDs

Thu Dec 15 07:54:58 EST 2005

Dear all,

Nations, economies, countries, communities, ..... What is the foundation for
ccTLDs ? This is an important issue.

ccTLDs were distributed initially by Postel according to an ISO standard if
I am not mistaken. The result (see full list at :
http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm#f.) is that France, for
instance, has several ccTLDs in addition to .fr, corresponding to various
territories around the world, such as : .gf (french guyana), .pf
(polynesia), .tf (southern territories), .yt (Mayotte), .nc (New Caledonia),
.re (Reunion island), .wf (Wallis and Futuna) or .pm (St Pierre and
Miquelon). I may forget some ...

Interrestingly enough, the corresponding sponsoring organizations are
diverse, some ccTLDs being under the responsibility of AFNIC (in charge of
the .fr), some being different and based in the respective territories.

So, clearly, ccTLDs are not limited to countries. Territories, communities
are already part of the picture.

I might also mention as examples of interesting test cases related to past
or present conflicts or disputes : .fk (for the Falklands), .gi (for
Gibraltar), .eh (for Western Sahara) or .ps for the palestinian
territories. Clearly, the list of ccTLDs is not commensurate to the UN
membership.

I wonder how the Tunis rule of one government not intervening in the
management of another's ccTLD will apply to some of them.

As the web develops, the question of the creation of new TLDs is important,
not only for the gTLDs such as .xxx, but also, for territories-less nations
(cf. Jovan's exploration of a .rom) and ultimately, any community that want
its existence recognized online.

We also know the debate on the creation of .ct (for Catalunyia) and the
strong opposition of the spanish government. I do not imagine the debate in
France about the creation of a domain name for Corsica !.

This issue is clearly one where :
- general rules must be established at the global level
- not under the sole ultimate responsibility of national governments,
although they naturally should be fully involved in the discussions
- one single government (ie the US) cannot be tasked with the ultimate veto
responsibility of entering the new domain in the root or not.

Parminder's remark, as usual, is putting the finger on a type of issue that
is not sufficiently addressed today but could become sensitive and puts the
question of public policy guidelines on the creation of new TLDs in an
interesting light.

Without delving deeper in that issue at that stage, let me just put forward
two principles that should be kept in mind when these issues are going to be
addressed :
- the need to consider all levels of public interests : national public
interests, but also global public interests, and ultimately, the
public/common  interest of numerous communities that are not territorially
based,
- the need to reach an optimum balance in the management of what is,
ultimately, an "artificial scarcity" , unlike the natural scarcity of most
physical goods.

There will be a fine line between the establishing a potential right of any
community to create and manage a TLD related to its domain of interest
(favoring all types of diversities and in line with the limitless
possibilities of the domain name addressing) and the need to keep the system
manageable, understandable and avoid cybersqatting or obligation for all
actors with strong brands to buy  preventively any extension of TLDs to
prevent inappropriate use.

This does not have to get into the CS statement now. But we must keep it in
mind and maybe make sure this is put in an appropriate way on the agenda of
future international discussions.

My two cents.

Best

Bertrand

On 12/15/05, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Izumi,
>
> I am sorry; I had gone more into a discussion on this than holding a veto
> against including 'economies'. Pl use that word along with (and after)
> countries.
>
> As for the contention that as a parallel movement to the rise of
> neo-liberalism, the discipline of economics is 'colonizing other social
> sciences' there is some established scholarship.
>
> Parminder
>
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 91-80-26654134
> www.ITforChange.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:20 AM
> To: Parminder; 'Ewan SUTHERLAND'; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almostfinal
> version4.1
>
> Parminder,
>
> As some have already pointed out, "economies" have been used mostly in
> Asia Pacific region to avoid endless political or ideological debate about
> jurisdiction over certain areas, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. It is
> used both by governments such as APEC as well as by some Internet
> community groups such as APNG, AP CERT etc, as well as ICANN.
>
> Does your objection mean to only use "country"? Then how do you
> reconcile this problem?
>
> In these precedences, it is not meant to put ascendancy of the 'economic'
> over the
> social, cultural and political and well recognized as such. I have not
> heard
> that kind of interpretation that much.
>
> So I beg you to accept "economies" as well. I guess it is not such "big
> deal" for us ;-)
>
>
> izumi
>
> At 23:04 05/12/14 +0530, Parminder wrote:
> >Ewan
> >
> >Yes I am conscious of the in-exactness of the 'country' term in covering
> >large geographic social aggregations we mean to cover in our
> >description.....
> >
> >However my objection to the term 'economies' is that it has ideological
> >baggage - and is keeping with the ascendancy of the 'economic' over the
> >social, cultural and political.
> >
> >Parminder
> >________________________________________________
> >Parminder Jeet Singh
> >IT for Change
> >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >91-80-26654134
> >www.ITforChange.net
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ewan SUTHERLAND [mailto:ewan at intug.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 PM
> >To: Parminder; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final
> >version4.1
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >"economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions
> >about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is
> >"member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation",
> >there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).
> >
> >The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes
> frequently.
> >
> >Ewan
> >
> >
> >
> > > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I
> don't
> > > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this
> political
> > > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic
> term
> > > -'economies'.
> > >
> > > Parminder
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > > IT for Change
> > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > > 91-80-26654134
> > > www.ITforChange.net
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final
> > > version4.1
> > >
> > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the
> > > civil society statement.
> > >
> > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will
> > > take a look and see if view are reflected.  Sorry, I've not been
> > > tracking this discussion closely.
> > >
> > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies,
> > > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
> > > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk
> > > >From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> > > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org
> > > >X-Accept-Language: de,en
> > > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting <ct-drafting at wsis-cs.org>,
> > > >     WSIS-CT <ct at wsis-cs.org>
> > > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1
> > > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org
> > > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org
> > > >List-Help: <mailto:ct-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=help>
> > > >List-Post: <mailto:ct at wsis-cs.org>
> > > >List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct>,
> > > >     <mailto:ct-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=subscribe>
> > > >List-Id: <ct.wsis-cs.org>
> > > >List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
> >,
> > > >     <mailto:ct-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >List-Archive: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/ct/>
> > > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100
> > > >X-Virus-Status: No
> > > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV
> > > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005
> > > >
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from
> > > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some
> > > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different
> > > >chapters where I felt they fit better.
> > > >
> > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance
> > > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version.
> > > >
> > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this
> > > >one and let us know at <cs-dec at wsis-cs.org> if there are any
> > > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure
> > > >blaiming and complaining.
> > > >
> > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two
> > > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some
> > > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed
> > > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be
> > > >accepted.
> > > >
> > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we
> > > >can release it on Thursday.
> > > >
> > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do
> > > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many
> > > >professional journalists here...
> > > >
> > > >Best, Ralf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > governance mailing list
> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
> >http://intug.net/ewan.html
> >skype://sutherla
> >+44 141 416 06 66
> >+32 486 52 22 21
> >http://3wan.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051215/26ad871f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance