| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
The Caribbean moves to Europe
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Or is that Atlas (Van Lines) Shrugged? Moving a tiny series of islands is one thing. Perhaps they broke loose and floated over, must be that global warming thingie going critical. But I gotta tell ya that being aboard whilst Canada (the world's largest country) was apparently teleported to Europe was a real rush. I know the internet was supposed to both shrink the world and make everything move more quickly, but this is rediculous. Yup, Canada (.ca) is a full member of the Council of European TLD Registries (CENTR [centr.org]). Eeeyeeeww, does that mean we have to join the .eu? So are some of those apparently rootless (as in wandering, not as in rootzone) small southern island nations. And I'd like to hear the story of how the likes of Afghanistan (.af) got there, sorry, here. I don't mean to make light of Kieren McCarthy's article, he has a long history of perceptively reporting on ICANN, and now does so again, indeed the CENTR membership is more widespread than its name implies (but which its bylaws allow) which underlines one of his points. I'm only pointing out, as I did here [icannwatch.org] regarding his recent related article, that it isn't just ICANN that can seem bizarre, even byzantine, to outsiders, such as Paul Kane being administrator for more than one ccTLD when IANA requires a resident administrator, including two in the South Atlantic and another in the Indian Ocean, unless they're on the move too. Oh, I see they have arrived. I guess that is my point, to the end user there seems little logic (and much silliness) to most of this, and the current pissing contest will probably have a negative tricledown effect no matter what happens.Thankfully, I've yet to see Antarctica come floating in or we're in real trouble (.aq, see what I mean, why does that exist as a country code, it shouldn't have one both because it has no native population and because it is a continent) come floating in or we're in real trouble. It's offtopic, but to be less flippant for a moment, if you care about the real world please read this [williamcalvin.com] Atlantic Monthly article regarding the North Atlantic current suddenly shutting down due to global warming. It has done so before and the results would (will, given our current course, perhaps within the decade) be catastrophic. An extended successful DoS attack on the rootservers would pale in comparison and no one will be safe even if they own all of the internet. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
I love The Register's stories, and especially those on ICANN. However this one is seriously astray.
It is true that ICANN rules allocate territories and colonies to the region of their "parents" rather than to the region they are physically located in. But this is not a new rule which was introduced ad hoc. It has been that way for over half a decade since July 2000. And it is an ICANN policy, not a ccNSO policy. The suggestion that the ccNSO has somehow made up this rule is incredibly offensive to those who are members.
I actually disagree with the policy, but it is unfair to suggest it was introduced just to allow the ccNSO to be formed. The labelling of it as a "brand new rule" is quite false.
I would also query the statement that "five-sixths" are refusing to join. Around half the ccTLDs just do not participate in global issues at all in any way. Have never posted on a list, attended a meeting. It is certainly true however that most of Europe have made a conscious decision not to join, and this does affect the credibility of the ccNSO.
The list of what changes are wanted, is somewhat misleading. If you ask current ccNSO members (I am with .nz which is a member) about that wishlist, and they would say we already have all these things. The debate has been largely a legalistic one about minor enhancements in the bylaws to remove perceived ambuigituy. There is no major policy difference between current members and non-members about what the powers of the ccNSO should be. Absolutely no-one at all has suggested ccNSO policies would bind non members for example. It is a red herring.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 6 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
The Caribbean moves to Europe