[LINK] Esther Dyson on TLD Proliferation

[David Goldstein]

I'm not using it as a test for change Darrell, but using it as an example of the narrowness of views to support or oppose or otherwise change. That the vast majority of panel members were not prepared to give reasons based on evidence shows how poorly the panel performed. I can't imagine successful businesses being so inward looking. By coincidence today I had lunch with one of the leading IP lawyers dealing with domain names in the world and we discussed some of the issues from the panel. There are plenty of ccTLDs that could be used as examples for improving policy. That none were is sad.
 
For example, I supported allowing non-Australian registrants in .au. But the claim was if there was a problem it can be difficult to contact the registrant. Which is not supported by evidence. You require a contact in the country of registration, and if they can't be contacted in the case of a problem, then this is the registrant's problem. Not the registry.
 
David


----- Original Message -----
> From: Darrell Burkey <darrell.burkey at anu.edu.au>
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Esther Dyson on TLD Proliferation
> 
> 
> On 14/12/11, David Goldstein  <wavey_one at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  On the Names Policy Panel I would introduce examples of other ccTLDs and 
> how .AU could be improved. Not once did anyone on the panel have examples of 
> ccTLD policy failure that could be used as evidence against changes.--
>> 
>> 
> I've never understood why you use that as a test to support 
> 'change'? It's difficult to discuss unless you first define 
> 'changes' and ' policy failure' which may have different 
> interpretations to various stakeholders. I have had the benefit of those 
> discussions with you but I'm not sure others here have. Changes that you may 
> consider totally acceptable, and therefore not 'failure', I may consider 
> a serious threat to domain name integrity and hence 'failure'. From my 
> personal point of view I think your input received significant and useful 
> examination. Making the above statement out of context doesn't do it justice 
> given the amount of consideration and examination it received.  
> 
> As for my statement regarding the membership of policy panels, I accept that 
> might be inappropriate to express in this venue. I have a well known bias 
> (although I prefer the word 'passion') for supporting non-profit models 
> for some activities. Those interested can simply look for themselves at the 
> make-up of those participating in auDA panels and of the auDA board to form 
> their own opinion. auDA goes to great lengths to be transparent and they make a 
> point of having all information easily accessible on their web site. 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Darrell Burkey
> UNIX Systems Administrator
> College of Asia & the Pacific
> Australian National University
> Ph: (02) 6125 4160
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>