[governance] Cameroon and Wales collision in TLD space ?????

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Hi all,

I have seen in previous posts this reference to the possible collision
between .cym and the three letter ISO code for Cameroon. Did not chime in
then as the thread had continued on another topic, but I am a bit puzzled
here.

If there is a problem, it's with the Cayman island (3-letter iso code CYM),
not Cameroon. As the Cayman islands are a UK territory, the relevant
national authority is the same as the Wales proposal, isn't it ? Anyway,
don't they already have a 2-letter ccTLD (kY is the 2-letter ISO 3166 code)
?

The issue may be real (there may be cases of possible collision) but
apparently the example does not work. Unless I'm mistaken which is possible
given that it was a rapid check. I may have just exposed my insufficient
knowledge ;-)

I suppose the possible collisions will only appear in due course as other
proposals will be put forward.

Best

Bertrand



On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <76f819dd0910151202y2a0ac3bbna59f0435a6a21558 at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 12:02:43 on Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>
>> Roland, you dropped out of the debate about democracy and ICANN,
>>
>
> I had said everything I wanted to.
>
>  Is this your hypothetical question about Cameroon and such?
>>
>
> Yes. And while it's hypothetical today, I'm 99% sure that such a decision
> will need to be made in the foreseeable future. Two groups of people are on
> a collision course!
>
> [I have no special interest in either the Cameroons, or Wales, but it's an
> elegant example to highlight the difficulties than can arise in a congested
> name-space]
>
>   If so, please understand that even if you proved your apparent "case"
>> that there are difficulties of implementation in your (straw man) version of
>> democracy, it does not follow whatsoever that any old thing, most especially
>> an un-democratic any old thing, can take the  place of some version of
>> democracy.
>>
>
> Which is why I asked what precise form of democracy *you* recommend to
> resolve the 'collision' I described.
>
>  It would be more enlightening for you to answer the question:
>>
>> Do you believe any subset of the people, whether "experts" or owners,
>> have the right to define and/or control or regulate the common life of
>> people on the Internet?
>>
>
> I'm trying to discover what subset of the people *you* would recommend made
> decisions to resolve 'collisions' like the one I described.
>
> Or if it's "all of the people", how would you organise a ballot on this
> 'collision', that would avoid the drawbacks I mentioned in my original
> question.
>
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091016/a89082ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance