| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.nu Swept Away?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
In the event a country is dissolved or fails to exist, I believe its database of registered domain names should be transferred to the IANA, in which case IANA would manage the ccTLD's root servers and allow domain name owners to modify their domain names (contact information, nameservers, etc.) through an IANA web-based interface. However, no new registrations should be accepted.
As for the length IANA should continue managing a ccTLD remains to be seen, but I would say at least two years and not more than three or four. That gives domain name owners more than adequate time to register a new domain name in another TLD, set up Web hosting for it, transfer their site over, forward users to it from the former address, and have their search engine links all re-indexed. After the two or three years, IANA would serve domain name owners a final 90-day notice, a 60-day notice, and a 30-day notice, and then remove the ccTLD from the root. Therefore, there can be absolutely no complaints. :)
In terms of running the ccTLD indefinitely, that seems unfair and undemocratic to the rest of us.
Cheers,
Doug
Doug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
If the fundamental principles of my prior comment are adhered to for removing ccTLDs from the root (and obviously, they would be fine-tuned to ensure it is beneficial for everybody), stability is not an issue. There would be several years that a ccTLD would be under IANA management and would allow domain name owners ample time to transition their Web sites to a new Web presence.
Some more thoughts,
Doug
P.S. Your "soverign" word is missing an "e". A typo that I spotted which you may want to correct. :)
Doug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
If a country ceases to exist, there is no reason why the domaion name owners should be forced to move to another domain. Especially, if the domain encouraged international use.
stability means nothing changes if it doesn't have to.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
You mentioned .gg for Guernsey, but neglected .je for Jersey (These are the Channel Islands, separate British Crown Dependanices with self-government)
These codes were taken from (iirc) international postal codes, because these countries do not have an iso assigned code - the relevant government departments have been trying to get an iso code, but it's a multi-year process.
Jon Postel agreed to create these zones, but didn't update any policy document to allow other countries in the same situation to use a similar method. My arguments at the time were that these countries should belong to .gb, as their correct legal status placed them in "Great Britain", but not in "United Kingdom".
However, the existing registrars had made their arguments directly to JP, and ignored the countries governments and Internet users. In their favour, however, I understand that they have managed the domains responsibly.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
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
|
