Estimados, Algo conversamos en la teleconferencia pasada acerca del ccTLD .CO y muchos de nosotros nos expresamos sobre el particular. Aprovecho para copiar aqui una cadena de la lista Internet Governance Cactus. Hay que leer los correos de abajo hacia arriba para seguir el Hilo. Debo decir que la opinion de Carlos Afonso me identifica. Saludos, Andres Piazza ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> Date: 2010/4/8 Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs To: governance@lists.cpsr.org, David Goldstein <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au> This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the developing world: There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world. For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered: stats for PKNIC 2010-04-07: domains: 29557 nameservers: 1179 There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is easily able to revoke such efforts. When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests which of course is a very big drawback. PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local and international communities as visible publicly here: http://public.icann.org/node/343. PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership between civil society, academia, private sector and govt multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in the country stand at approximately: Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380 (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK) IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at the same number: Total Domains in India : 559,213 (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN) This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following ways: 1. No control over ccTLD monopolies 2. Access low-cost ccTLD 3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD 4. Less consumer choices 5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high 6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to building local online activities backed by local domains) 7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the same infrastructure. Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be benefiting a handful. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, David Goldstein <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Carlos,
Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.
And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).
Regards
David
----- Original Message ----
From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca@cafonso.ca>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
David, some additional comments below.
--c.a.
David Goldstein wrote:
Carlos et al,
[...]
Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.
Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."
Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.
The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.
Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)
cheers
--c.a.
Cheers David
----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca@cafonso.ca>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
:) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
national commons would not succeed.
But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
Colombian Internet space.
frt rgds
--c.a.
McTim wrote:
Do we have any thing to say on this?
This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
--
Carlos A. Afonso
CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca@cafonso.ca
====================================
____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _________________________________________________________________