Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #265
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 5 2001            Volume 01 : Number 265

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:07:57 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various  forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, at 12:08 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:

>  here's a substantive question:  
> What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
> their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
> management?

They will be affected, even if (as I expect) they may keep them. If
ORG really becomes associated with organizations, the ORG domains of
individuals will look 'strange'.

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:11:33 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Does anyone know how many ccTLDs have an individual and an .org SLD? Is
there any useful understanding that could be taken from a short survey of
same? 

I would expect a lot of growth in the ccTLDs over the next few years, and
many people are likely to prefer to be in a country code... (in the country
they live in, for instance.)

I KNOW, I KNOW.  "not all".  You guys/gals don't need to send me 25 separate
messages explaining that I am wrong and that many will want a generic...
(I've got that picture, too.)  Save the e-postage. (that was a little
sarcasm.)

:-) 

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 7:08 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, at 12:08 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:

>  here's a substantive question:  
> What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
> their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
> management?

They will be affected, even if (as I expect) they may keep them. If
ORG really becomes associated with organizations, the ORG domains of
individuals will look 'strange'.

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -  
 
http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.O
RG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 08:26:00 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 11:42:55PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
> > at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
> > recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
> > good names are taken
> 
> (all the good names, taken) * $6/year = you do the math.

Right, the customers would be effectively locked in.  The registry would
be a cash cow, just collecting renewals.  That's why it is highly
unlikely that they would ever want to get rid of .com.  But they don't
need to compete for new customers to keep getting that cash.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:06:47 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Marilyn,

I read you with pleasure.

The ccTLD is a very diverse group.

Only 88 of them run whois.
Only 98 of them answered ICANN call for payment fiscal year 1999-2000.
Only 95 of them at most ever wrote an email to our mailing lists.
And please do not forget than American Embassy in Kazakhstan considered
that the folks from ccTLD Registry there are not good enough to give them
visa to Los Angeles last November ...

There is as many naming schemes as ccTLD Registries ... you
have individuals and organizations mixed up with everything else 
- -- in dot com like -- when Registries decided to run it this way.

The naming policies are evolving over time, the ccTLD adjusting
to their local Internet community needs, or business needs.
I made a survey of 11 European Registries in 1999, at that time
two or three of them had an SLD for individuals. Some of them had
a rich naming schemes, far beyond classical .com/.org/.edu.

At the origin of Internet (circa mid 1980's), all ccTLD had a flat
scheme. Then some build up a naming schemes according to local needs.
Later we may observe two tendencies, one from restricted
policies to more open, one from open to more restricted.
There are many advantages and disadvantages in each scheme, and
the vox populi changing over time.

Let me take French exemple. We started with flat scheme, it lasted
several years, then we needed to cope with problems, and find out
a way to accomodate everybody, and set out priorities. Our scheme
is user driven.
Under .fr we have a naming scheme with labels, provinding a guarantee 
to end users or consumers. For exemple only Medical Doctors authorised 
to work in France may register under medecin.fr.
Similar for some other professions. Also for products for which quality
is of importance. The non for profit associations have an SLD .asso.fr
(the conditions to set up an not for profit in France are very simple,
no lawyer necessary, and it costs approx 40 USD -- there is more than
one million of them).
The individuals are under .nom.fr, it allows us for an easy whois scheme
respecting privacy of individuals in France.

And yes, we also have an open SLD, .com.fr, where you may take any 
name (under some minimal conditions, French residency or incorporation
are mandatory).

See you in Melbourne,

Elisabeth

> From [email-masked] Sun Mar  4 16:20 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Marc Schneiders'" <[email-masked]>,
>         Joop Teernstra
> 	 <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu
> 	als or organizations exist in cc?
> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:11:33 -0500 
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> 
> Does anyone know how many ccTLDs have an individual and an .org SLD? Is
> there any useful understanding that could be taken from a short survey of
> same? 
> 
> I would expect a lot of growth in the ccTLDs over the next few years, and
> many people are likely to prefer to be in a country code... (in the country
> they live in, for instance.)
> 
> I KNOW, I KNOW.  "not all".  You guys/gals don't need to send me 25 separate
> messages explaining that I am wrong and that many will want a generic...
> (I've got that picture, too.)  Save the e-postage. (that was a little
> sarcasm.)
> 
> :-) 
> 
> Marilyn
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:37:28 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individual als or organizations exist in cc?

Elisabeth, this was extremely helpful. Thanks!

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs
for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Marilyn,

I read you with pleasure.

The ccTLD is a very diverse group.

Only 88 of them run whois.
Only 98 of them answered ICANN call for payment fiscal year 1999-2000.
Only 95 of them at most ever wrote an email to our mailing lists.
And please do not forget than American Embassy in Kazakhstan considered
that the folks from ccTLD Registry there are not good enough to give them
visa to Los Angeles last November ...

There is as many naming schemes as ccTLD Registries ... you
have individuals and organizations mixed up with everything else 
- -- in dot com like -- when Registries decided to run it this way.

The naming policies are evolving over time, the ccTLD adjusting
to their local Internet community needs, or business needs.
I made a survey of 11 European Registries in 1999, at that time
two or three of them had an SLD for individuals. Some of them had
a rich naming schemes, far beyond classical .com/.org/.edu.

At the origin of Internet (circa mid 1980's), all ccTLD had a flat
scheme. Then some build up a naming schemes according to local needs.
Later we may observe two tendencies, one from restricted
policies to more open, one from open to more restricted.
There are many advantages and disadvantages in each scheme, and
the vox populi changing over time.

Let me take French exemple. We started with flat scheme, it lasted
several years, then we needed to cope with problems, and find out
a way to accomodate everybody, and set out priorities. Our scheme
is user driven.
Under .fr we have a naming scheme with labels, provinding a guarantee 
to end users or consumers. For exemple only Medical Doctors authorised 
to work in France may register under medecin.fr.
Similar for some other professions. Also for products for which quality
is of importance. The non for profit associations have an SLD .asso.fr
(the conditions to set up an not for profit in France are very simple,
no lawyer necessary, and it costs approx 40 USD -- there is more than
one million of them).
The individuals are under .nom.fr, it allows us for an easy whois scheme
respecting privacy of individuals in France.

And yes, we also have an open SLD, .com.fr, where you may take any 
name (under some minimal conditions, French residency or incorporation
are mandatory).

See you in Melbourne,

Elisabeth

> From [email-masked] Sun Mar  4 16:20 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Marc Schneiders'" <[email-masked]>,
>         Joop Teernstra
> 	 <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for
individu
> 	als or organizations exist in cc?
> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:11:33 -0500 
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> 
> Does anyone know how many ccTLDs have an individual and an .org SLD? Is
> there any useful understanding that could be taken from a short survey of
> same? 
> 
> I would expect a lot of growth in the ccTLDs over the next few years, and
> many people are likely to prefer to be in a country code... (in the
country
> they live in, for instance.)
> 
> I KNOW, I KNOW.  "not all".  You guys/gals don't need to send me 25
separate
> messages explaining that I am wrong and that many will want a generic...
> (I've got that picture, too.)  Save the e-postage. (that was a little
> sarcasm.)
> 
> :-) 
> 
> Marilyn
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:06:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Hello Marilyn,

I can't find it right now, but I'll look this week for it, there was a
report that even in the countries with large numbers of registrations
under their ccTLD (suck as .uk and .fr) that com/net/org were still
the leading TLDs for registrations.

I think the "people will want to be under the ccTLD for their country"
statement is a myth.

This is most especially true when the ccTLD's policy forces them into a
third level domain situation instead of a second level domain.

Sunday, March 04, 2001, 7:11:33 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Does anyone know how many ccTLDs have an individual and an .org SLD? Is
> there any useful understanding that could be taken from a short survey of
> same? 

> I would expect a lot of growth in the ccTLDs over the next few years, and
> many people are likely to prefer to be in a country code... (in the country
> they live in, for instance.)

> I KNOW, I KNOW.  "not all".  You guys/gals don't need to send me 25 separate
> messages explaining that I am wrong and that many will want a generic...
> (I've got that picture, too.)  Save the e-postage. (that was a little
> sarcasm.)

> :-) 

> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 7:08 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
> forums, we can as k substantive questions

> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, at 12:08 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:

>>  here's a substantive question:  
>> What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
>> their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
>> management?

> They will be affected, even if (as I expect) they may keep them. If
> ORG really becomes associated with organizations, the ORG domains of
> individuals will look 'strange'.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 21:54:56 +0200
From: Doron Shikmoni <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for  individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Marilyn and Elisabeth,

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> At the origin of Internet (circa mid 1980's), all ccTLD had a flat
> scheme. Then some build up a naming schemes according to local needs.

Correction:

.il was the 2nd ccTLD ever to be delegated (well, actually 3rd, if you
count .us; .uk was first outside the USA, .il was second).

.il has never (since day one) been flat. Hierarchy was built in when
it was conceived. No one registers names on the 2nd level.
I have reasons to believe that .uk was also hierarchical from day one -
but they should have the definitive answer (anyone there remembers
rl.ac.uk, or UK.AC.RL?...).

Sincerely,
Doron Shikmoni

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:41:42 +1100
From: "Mark Flynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Elizabeth,

I don't clearly see what you are trying to illustrate by providing the
statistics below but at present I can only feedback that as a ccTLD
administrator ICANN, and it's supporting bodies, have never made a good
impression since I first took over this role in 1999. For a start the change
of administrator details took over 6 months, it turned out that there was
only 1 person responsible for handling this function, since then there has
been no clear indications of what has changed to improve this lack of basic
service. I hope to get a more positive view point when attending the meeting
in Melbourne, which is only happening because that is where my wife and
child have been based since the coup that occurred here on June 5th 2000.
Please remember that not all ccTLD's are operated in well developed western
countries with expertise readily available, or that those countries even
have laws that are concerned with issues that ICANN and groups like the WIPO
appear to be preoccupied with. Who knows perhaps the people from Kazakhstan
are really nice once you get to know them, one thing is for certain if they
are not allowed to participate then they aren't likely to assist with
funding.

Mark Flynn
ccTLD Administrator .SB
Solomon Islands, South Pacific Ocean.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> Porteneuve
> Sent: Monday, 5 March 2001 5:07
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs
> for individu als or organizations exist in cc?
>
>
>
> Marilyn,
>
> I read you with pleasure.
>
> The ccTLD is a very diverse group.
>
> Only 88 of them run whois.
> Only 98 of them answered ICANN call for payment fiscal year 1999-2000.
> Only 95 of them at most ever wrote an email to our mailing lists.
> And please do not forget than American Embassy in Kazakhstan considered
> that the folks from ccTLD Registry there are not good enough to give them
> visa to Los Angeles last November ...
>
> There is as many naming schemes as ccTLD Registries ... you
> have individuals and organizations mixed up with everything else
> -- in dot com like -- when Registries decided to run it this way.
>
> The naming policies are evolving over time, the ccTLD adjusting
> to their local Internet community needs, or business needs.
> I made a survey of 11 European Registries in 1999, at that time
> two or three of them had an SLD for individuals. Some of them had
> a rich naming schemes, far beyond classical .com/.org/.edu.
>
> At the origin of Internet (circa mid 1980's), all ccTLD had a flat
> scheme. Then some build up a naming schemes according to local needs.
> Later we may observe two tendencies, one from restricted
> policies to more open, one from open to more restricted.
> There are many advantages and disadvantages in each scheme, and
> the vox populi changing over time.
>
> Let me take French exemple. We started with flat scheme, it lasted
> several years, then we needed to cope with problems, and find out
> a way to accomodate everybody, and set out priorities. Our scheme
> is user driven.
> Under .fr we have a naming scheme with labels, provinding a guarantee
> to end users or consumers. For exemple only Medical Doctors authorised
> to work in France may register under medecin.fr.
> Similar for some other professions. Also for products for which quality
> is of importance. The non for profit associations have an SLD .asso.fr
> (the conditions to set up an not for profit in France are very simple,
> no lawyer necessary, and it costs approx 40 USD -- there is more than
> one million of them).
> The individuals are under .nom.fr, it allows us for an easy whois scheme
> respecting privacy of individuals in France.
>
> And yes, we also have an open SLD, .com.fr, where you may take any
> name (under some minimal conditions, French residency or incorporation
> are mandatory).
>
> See you in Melbourne,
>
> Elisabeth
>
> > From [email-masked] Sun Mar  4 16:20 MET 2001
> > Message-ID:
> <[email-masked]>
> > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "'Marc Schneiders'" <[email-masked]>,
> >         Joop Teernstra
> > 	 <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] is there any factual information about how many
> SLDs for individu
> > 	als or organizations exist in cc?
> > Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:11:33 -0500
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know how many ccTLDs have an individual and an .org SLD? Is
> > there any useful understanding that could be taken from a short
> survey of
> > same?
> >
> > I would expect a lot of growth in the ccTLDs over the next few
> years, and
> > many people are likely to prefer to be in a country code... (in
> the country
> > they live in, for instance.)
> >
> > I KNOW, I KNOW.  "not all".  You guys/gals don't need to send
> me 25 separate
> > messages explaining that I am wrong and that many will want a generic...
> > (I've got that picture, too.)  Save the e-postage. (that was a little
> > sarcasm.)
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 23:02:36 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

Mark,

Thank you for saying it so well -- ICANN did not spend much time
on ccTLD matters, its main concerns were for gTLD and Registrars.
ICANN is committed by the USG to sign agreements with ccTLD this year
- -- I used to summarize it: 242 contracts in 242 days ?

My message to Marilyn is twofold:
   - first, a note that ccTLD are as diverse as the world is,
     and that whereas we are 244 ccTLD, not many of us could
     or would participate, for many various reasons we need 
     to understand; 
     the Kazakhstan exemple of visa problem is well recorded 
     in council archives, see:
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00453.html
   - second, a simple answer to a question about naming schemes
     (SLDs in ccTLDs)

I am looking forward to see you in Melbourne !
Elisabeth
- --

> From [email-masked] Sun Mar  4 22:39 MET 2001
> From: "Mark Flynn" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>,
>         "Pacific Internet Users Group Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:41:42 +1100
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> 
> Elizabeth,
> 
> I don't clearly see what you are trying to illustrate by providing the
> statistics below but at present I can only feedback that as a ccTLD
> administrator ICANN, and it's supporting bodies, have never made a good
> impression since I first took over this role in 1999. For a start the change
> of administrator details took over 6 months, it turned out that there was
> only 1 person responsible for handling this function, since then there has
> been no clear indications of what has changed to improve this lack of basic
> service. I hope to get a more positive view point when attending the meeting
> in Melbourne, which is only happening because that is where my wife and
> child have been based since the coup that occurred here on June 5th 2000.
> Please remember that not all ccTLD's are operated in well developed western
> countries with expertise readily available, or that those countries even
> have laws that are concerned with issues that ICANN and groups like the WIPO
> appear to be preoccupied with. Who knows perhaps the people from Kazakhstan
> are really nice once you get to know them, one thing is for certain if they
> are not allowed to participate then they aren't likely to assist with
> funding.
> 
> Mark Flynn
> ccTLD Administrator .SB
> Solomon Islands, South Pacific Ocean.
> 
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> > Porteneuve
> > Sent: Monday, 5 March 2001 5:07
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs
> > for individu als or organizations exist in cc?
> >
> >
> >
> > Marilyn,
> >
> > I read you with pleasure.
> >
> > The ccTLD is a very diverse group.
> >
> > Only 88 of them run whois.
> > Only 98 of them answered ICANN call for payment fiscal year 1999-2000.
> > Only 95 of them at most ever wrote an email to our mailing lists.
> > And please do not forget than American Embassy in Kazakhstan considered
> > that the folks from ccTLD Registry there are not good enough to give them
> > visa to Los Angeles last November ...
> >
> > There is as many naming schemes as ccTLD Registries ... you
> > have individuals and organizations mixed up with everything else
> > -- in dot com like -- when Registries decided to run it this way.
> >
> > The naming policies are evolving over time, the ccTLD adjusting
> > to their local Internet community needs, or business needs.
> > I made a survey of 11 European Registries in 1999, at that time
> > two or three of them had an SLD for individuals. Some of them had
> > a rich naming schemes, far beyond classical .com/.org/.edu.
> >
> > At the origin of Internet (circa mid 1980's), all ccTLD had a flat
> > scheme. Then some build up a naming schemes according to local needs.
> > Later we may observe two tendencies, one from restricted
> > policies to more open, one from open to more restricted.
> > There are many advantages and disadvantages in each scheme, and
> > the vox populi changing over time.
> >
> > Let me take French exemple. We started with flat scheme, it lasted
> > several years, then we needed to cope with problems, and find out
> > a way to accomodate everybody, and set out priorities. Our scheme
> > is user driven.
> > Under .fr we have a naming scheme with labels, provinding a guarantee
> > to end users or consumers. For exemple only Medical Doctors authorised
> > to work in France may register under medecin.fr.
> > Similar for some other professions. Also for products for which quality
> > is of importance. The non for profit associations have an SLD .asso.fr
> > (the conditions to set up an not for profit in France are very simple,
> > no lawyer necessary, and it costs approx 40 USD -- there is more than
> > one million of them).
> > The individuals are under .nom.fr, it allows us for an easy whois scheme
> > respecting privacy of individuals in France.
> >
> > And yes, we also have an open SLD, .com.fr, where you may take any
> > name (under some minimal conditions, French residency or incorporation
> > are mandatory).
> >
> > See you in Melbourne,
> >
> > Elisabeth
> >
> > > From [email-masked] Sun Mar  4 16:20 MET 2001
> > > Message-ID:
> > <[email-masked]>
> > > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "'Marc Schneiders'" <[email-masked]>,
> > >         Joop Teernstra
> > > 	 <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: [ga] is there any factual information about how many
> > SLDs for individu
> > > 	als or organizations exist in cc?
> > > Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:11:33 -0500
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anyone know how many ccTLDs have an individual and an .org SLD? Is
> > > there any useful understanding that could be taken from a short
> > survey of
> > > same?
> > >
> > > I would expect a lot of growth in the ccTLDs over the next few
> > years, and
> > > many people are likely to prefer to be in a country code... (in
> > the country
> > > they live in, for instance.)
> > >
> > > I KNOW, I KNOW.  "not all".  You guys/gals don't need to send
> > me 25 separate
> > > messages explaining that I am wrong and that many will want a generic...
> > > (I've got that picture, too.)  Save the e-postage. (that was a little
> > > sarcasm.)
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Marilyn
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:07:09 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

>Marilyn and Elisabeth,
>
>Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
>> At the origin of Internet (circa mid 1980's), all ccTLD had a flat
>> scheme. Then some build up a naming schemes according to local needs.
>
>Correction:
>
>.il was the 2nd ccTLD ever to be delegated (well, actually 3rd, if you
>count .us; .uk was first outside the USA, .il was second).
>
>.il has never (since day one) been flat. Hierarchy was built in when
>it was conceived. No one registers names on the 2nd level.
>I have reasons to believe that .uk was also hierarchical from day one -
>but they should have the definitive answer (anyone there remembers
>rl.ac.uk, or UK.AC.RL?...).

TTBOMK, .nz has always had levels.

We adopted the UK model .co.nz rather than .com.nz

There's a few tricky 2LD's floating in the .nz namespace. See if you can
spot them and guess what they do:

.co.nz
.net.nz (was once restricted - even just 2 years ago? - but is now open)
.org.nz
.gen.nz
.mil.nz
.govt.nz
.cri.nz
.iwi.nz
.school.nz
.ac.nz

Did I get them all, DPF?

Possibly coming soon is a (very) restricted TLD

.bank.nz

The restrictions prevent me from getting sperm.bank.nz :^(

school.nz is unrestricted, allowing sex.school.nz and girls.school.nz

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 13:09:21 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Chair nomination help

There is a tool that has been prepared with some effort and is waiting for
you to be used.
Up to now only 7 GA members have used the web based nomination form at
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

You may wish to look at the result or make your nomination(s) yourself.
Those who have made nominations on the list may want to repeat them on the
web, so that all nominations are conveniently tabulated in one place.

The purpose of this exercise is  to make it easier to determine which names
should be sent to the DNSO secretariat, without clogging this list with
untimely election politics.

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 20:36:21 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

Here's a substantive question, and I'd like to see ICANN commission an
independent substantive analysis of it.

I don't pretend to know whether the registry-registrar split was either a
good idea in 1999 when it was first agreed or still a good idea now. I think
we ought to do whatever maximizes competition in this space, but I am not an
economist and have no idea which alternative best enhances the competitive
landscape.

Market regulation of this type is complex. To the best of my knowledge, the
Board has commissioned no independent economic studies on the market effects
of the split, or non-split, so at present it is wholly reliant on our
collective wet finger in the wind to make the determination.

I'd like to see an independent economic analysis of the likely comparative
long term market effects of (a) splitting the registry and registrar on the
model contained in the 1999 agreements; and (b) not splitting the registry
and registrar, but peeling off .org and .net over time.

I don't know how much it would cost, who would do it, or how quickly it
could be done, but without such an expert opinion, we're all just guessing.
The Board included. We might still be guessing after the report, but at
least it would be a more informed decision.

The firm that does this should be retained in advance of Melbourne. It
should attend the Melbourne meeting, listen to the public comments, and
prepare a report for publication within a short time thereafter.

  -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:19:37 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Bret,

With some registrar's having 10 year contracts with customers on
domain registrations, any concept that would result in a dismantling
of the SRS system for com/net/org is probably not something that is
feasible.

Sunday, March 04, 2001, 8:36:21 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Here's a substantive question, and I'd like to see ICANN commission an
> independent substantive analysis of it.

> I don't pretend to know whether the registry-registrar split was either a
> good idea in 1999 when it was first agreed or still a good idea now. I think
> we ought to do whatever maximizes competition in this space, but I am not an
> economist and have no idea which alternative best enhances the competitive
> landscape.

> Market regulation of this type is complex. To the best of my knowledge, the
> Board has commissioned no independent economic studies on the market effects
> of the split, or non-split, so at present it is wholly reliant on our
> collective wet finger in the wind to make the determination.

> I'd like to see an independent economic analysis of the likely comparative
> long term market effects of (a) splitting the registry and registrar on the
> model contained in the 1999 agreements; and (b) not splitting the registry
> and registrar, but peeling off .org and .net over time.

> I don't know how much it would cost, who would do it, or how quickly it
> could be done, but without such an expert opinion, we're all just guessing.
> The Board included. We might still be guessing after the report, but at
> least it would be a more informed decision.

> The firm that does this should be retained in advance of Melbourne. It
> should attend the Melbourne meeting, listen to the public comments, and
> prepare a report for publication within a short time thereafter.

>   -- Bret

> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 19:25:59 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is there any factual information about how many SLDs for individu als or organizations exist in cc?

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:07:09 -0600, you wrote:

>TTBOMK, .nz has always had levels.
>
>We adopted the UK model .co.nz rather than .com.nz
>
>There's a few tricky 2LD's floating in the .nz namespace. See if you can
>spot them and guess what they do:
>
>.co.nz
>.net.nz (was once restricted - even just 2 years ago? - but is now open)
>.org.nz
>.gen.nz
>.mil.nz
>.govt.nz
>.cri.nz
>.iwi.nz
>.school.nz
>.ac.nz
>
>Did I get them all, DPF?

Yep :-)

>Possibly coming soon is a (very) restricted TLD
>
>.bank.nz
>
>The restrictions prevent me from getting sperm.bank.nz :^(

Also about to be considered is maori.nz (Maori is the indigenous race
of New Zealand)

>school.nz is unrestricted, allowing sex.school.nz and girls.school.nz

Yep that e-mail address of [email-masked] is well known!

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #265
************************