[governance] Countries and ccTLDs

[David Allen]

Bertrand hits so nicely here key points in a discussion intensively 
underway among those concerned with multilingualization. 
Particularly MINC (the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium) is in 
the midst of these questions:  How are all the diverse 
representations of community - often overlapping - made accessible 
and also in a coherent fashion that is manageable and underpins 
connectivity among all.

David

Co-Principal
Collab CPR

Bertrand de La Chapelle writes:
>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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance