- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:32:57 -0500
- To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
First, the set of policies implemented by ccTLD registry operators is non-uniform. Some have been repurposed as gTLDs, under the theory of subsidiarity, and some of these are operated by Verisign, Afilias or NeuStar. Some have the base gTLD registration policy (First Come, First Serve) with the, or a minor variation of, the gTLD UDRP, and a nexus requirement for the contact records (or or all of {registrant, administrative, technical and billing contacts}) or the Name Servers. Second, those which are not repurposed, e.g., us, bz, cc, co, in, me, ... differ in secondary structure, implementation, and registration rules. As an example of the implementation variation, until recently the .za registry was a registry of several independent secondary registries. I could go on, but the main points are that using the word "brand" is contrary to the practice of delegated iso3166 code point name space policy makers, registry operators, and their access providers and end users, with the exception of those delegations which have been captured for other than local public interest, and policy, implementation, and utilization vary significantly. Eric
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 13:35:50 UTC